Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [26 February],

That the Bill be now considered.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 7 June.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 7 June.

ADELPHI ESTATE BILL ( By Order)

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday 22 May at Seven o'clock.

Mr. Speaker: As the remaining seven private Bills set down for Second Reading have blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall put them as a single group.

CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL ( By Order)

SHARD BRIDGE BILL (By Order)

VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] ( By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 7 June.

EXMOUTH DOCKS BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [29 March],

That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 7 June.

GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AUTHORITY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

HEATHROW EXPRESS RAILWAYS BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 7 June.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Pigs

Mr. Donald Thompson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what factors affect monetary compensatory amounts on pigs.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): The 9·8 per cent. devaluation in the pigmeat green rate that we obtained for the United Kingdom at the price fixing will, at current rates of exchange, eliminate our pigmeat MCAs.

Mr. Thompson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will accept the thanks of the industry for that. Will he take this opportunity to thank the pig industry for its fight against Aujesky's disease and the way in which it has funded the fight with such successful results?

Mr. Gummer: I am pleased to confirm that. I think that I was the first Member to raise the question of Aujesky's disease in the House in the first year of this Government. I am pleased that I am the Minister who will probably be the first to say that the disease is finally removed from Britain.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Why did the Minister fail to take the first opportunity to alert the public to the problems arising from feed contaminated with cyanide being fed to pigs in Yorkshire, which resulted in the slaughter of more than 1,200 pigs? Is not that another example of the secrecy and cover-up tactics adopted by this Minister, which have led to such a lack of trust in his Ministry?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Lady should not suggest that there has been a cover-up. If ever a Ministry announced everything and gave all the information, it is this Ministry. She makes that suggestion because she does not know the facts. She does not know that the French feed was discovered and that Bibby's did the work necessary to withdraw it, or that it presented no public health hazard whatever. She should stand up and congratulate my officials who did the work, rather than insult them.

Mr. Hunter: Bearing in mind the fact that the cyclical nature of the pig industry reflects the size of the national herd, does my right hon. Friend think that it is desirable to introduce greater stability through a tighter EEC regime, or that that area of agriculture is better left more open to market forces?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right to say that we must be particularly generous in eliminating the MCAs for the pig industry because it has so little support under the present common agricultural policy. In the end, the British industry will do much better if it can regain a large proportion of our home market, which has been taken over by competitors.

Mr. Morley: Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), it appears that on 3 May the Minister was aware that pig feed was contaminated with a cyanate product, Cyanox 425, as well as the insecticide Isofenphos, yet it was not until 9 May,


through parliamentary questions from my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), that the information was made known. When the Minister goes round the country making silly speeches about such matters as vegetarianism being an unnatural activity, while suppressing important information on contamination of pigmeat in Yorkshire, Humberside, Durham and Nottinghamshire, is not his personal credibility damaged in dealing with public anxiety about food safety?

Mr. Gummer: What the hon. Gentleman says would be true if it were right. The press was fully informed of that matter long before the question was raised in the House. It recognised that as there was no threat whatever to human health, it was not even worth putting into the press. It is not surprising that no one but the hon. Gentleman seems to think that it is a matter of secrecy. It can hardly be secret if the press has been told.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the Minister remind the Opposition that cabbage contains cyanide and that it is a natural part of the human diet, although that may worry vegetarians? Will he also remind the Opposition that scare stories about food are quite unwarranted? We have some of the safest food in the world.

Mr. Gummer: I have to admit to my hon. Friend that I have not advised the public about the cyanide that is in cabbage. If the press feels that it would like to take that up, no doubt we can discuss it. I keep nothing from the public and I am prepared always to tell the public the truth. It is only because the Opposition want to find a conspiracy that they are determined to say that, largely because they have very little else to say about agriculture.

Fishing Industry

Mr. Wallace: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the present state of the fishing industry.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): Landings of all species by United Kingdom vessels in the United Kingdom for 1989 were worth some £389 million compared with £396 million in 1988. While fishing opportunities and earnings from North sea cod and haddock in 1990 have been reduced, the estimated value of landings in the early part of the year was at least similar to that at the same time last year.

Mr. Wallace: Does the Minister accept that notwithstanding the figures that he has given for earnings, the industry is still facing depression and is apprehensive? He mentioned the decline in earnings from cod and haddock. Is he aware that many producers are experiencing a squeeze on their catches of whiting? Will he explain to the House why, when the total allowable catches of whiting went up this year, the amount for industrial fishing went up even more, thereby affecting our fleet, which catches fish for human consumption? What steps are the Government taking in current reviews to alter that and to allow more fish to be caught for human consumption? That would help our fleet, which needs every little bit of help that it can get.

Mr. Curry: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the consultation paper called "Entitlement Aggregation".

That is the next phase of our management improvement and will be in the Library today. It will tackle some of the problems of the fleet. The hon. Gentleman asked about whiting. It is true that scientists recommended an increase in the industrial catch, which is why the total allowable catches went up. We keep those figures under review, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that we are seeking an increase in cod availability because of an agreement with Norway. That increase will be distributed according to the normal rules. We are presently negotiating that with the Community.

Sir Michael Shaw: Has my hon. Friend had a chance to read the thoroughly misleading leaflet being circulated by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)? Does he agree that there must be agreement between all hon. Members with constituencies adjacent to the North sea if the North sea fishing industry is to be preserved? Does he further agree that the present problem is mainly about the number of fish there? It cannot be solved unilaterally. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will do everything possible to preserve the long-term interests of the British fishing industry?

Mr. Curry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) produced a sort of samizdat. It was written in small print, no doubt to deter people from reading it so that they would not be too bemused. It was an exercise in historical nostalgia and was very selective in its facts. My hon. Friend is right to say that it is only by common effort in conservation and by achieving better management, which the Government have already embarked upon, that we can conserve stocks for the future of the fishing industry.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Does the Minister accept that even if the print on the document, which many Conservative Members support, was small, the message is still loud and clear? In its present crisis the industry needs a decommissioning scheme as a conservation measure. It needs proper conservation by way of an increase in mesh sizes, a ban on industrial fishing and the use of square mesh panels. Why does not the Minister take the lead in introducing those measures instead of leaving all the running to a Commissioner who seems to do more for his native Spanish industry than for the industry of this country?

Mr. Curry: First, it is nice of the hon. Gentleman to come here. Secondly, we have introduced a series of management measures. I commend the latest paper to the hon. Gentleman and I am sure that his fleet in Grimsby will find it of great interest. We are pursuing the conservation options with a great deal of enthusiasm, together with our Scottish colleagues and the remainder of the United Kingdom.
By a combination of more intelligent and better management measures and effective conservation measures, we shall achieve real benefits for our fleet—rather than taking the hon. Gentleman's purely theoretical and rhetorical stance, which no doubt is in keeping with the media personality that he wishes to pursue.

Mr. Harris: Has my hon. Friend received my letter about the renewed and growing fears of fishermen, especially in Cornwall, about the apparent reappearance of the so-called flags of convenience vessels on the register? He will know that some 136 vessels were removed from our


fishing fleet as a result of legislation passed by the House, but now there are fears that 29 such vessels have come back on to our register. Can my hon. Friend enlighten us on that?

Mr. Curry:: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend some information. The vessels that are now back on the register are under British ownership, with a single exception that is Spanish owned. They all fulfil the requirement for management of their fisheries from a United Kingdom economic base. They also fulfil the domiciliary and residence requirements. To all intents and purposes, those vessels are no longer quota hoppers; they are legal under British registration and licensing procedures.

Mr. McGrady: Is the Minister aware of the grave concern of the Northern Ireland Fish Producers Organisation about the proposal to change the navigational system for fishing in the Irish sea from the well-tried Decca method to an obsolete air system that has been abandoned by the United States? Will he undertake to consult the Northern Ireland Fish Producers Organisation and respond reasonably to its concerns about its members' livelihoods? In the aftermath of a very bad winter, it wants to ensure that the capability to fish will be safeguarded.

Mr. Curry: The substance of the matter is more for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. However, my Department has taken an interest in it and we hope to obtain a significant cut in the light dues paid by fishermen. We have managed to achieve a long transition period, which I believe will be very useful to the industry. I am conscious of the position of the Northern Ireland fishing industry and, in consultation with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who is on the Bench with me, we do our utmost to safeguard the industry's livelihood.

Mr. Mans: What sort of support can the industry on the west coast, especially in my port of Fleetwood, expect from the Government to meet the European Community's hygiene regulations in 1992?

Mr. Curry: As my hon. Friend knows, a series of measures will enable us to support the development of modern hygiene facilities. Of course, a considerable part of that must fall upon the industry because it is important that it can meet the single market and claim that fish is a product that is handled cleanly as well as being exceptionally healthy. We shall do our utmost to ensure that the British fishing industry, which is the largest in the northern part of the European Community, can compete effectively.

Food Labelling

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any plans to make further changes to the present regulations covering the labelling of food.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): There are in various stages of development, both here and in Brussels, proposals covering date marking, lot identification marks, nutrition labelling, quantitive ingredient listing, ingredient listing for alcoholic drinks,

controls on claims and the labelling of irradiated food. The Food Advisory Committee is also carrying out a review of food labelling at my request.

Mr. Bruce: Is the Minister aware that concern has been expressed by British-based exporters of meat that they are not on a level playing field? Is he further aware that a company in my constituency recently had a load of pigeon breasts condemned by the Italian authorities on grounds that had not been previously advised—that is, that the labelling was not in Italian, although it had not been requested, and that there was not a full veterinary certificate, even though the company had met all the British requirements? Is the Minister satisfied that other members of the European Community are offering trade on equal terms?

Mr. Maclean: If any of the hon. Gentleman's constituents encounter certification problems on the export of meat or meat products, my officials will be ready to give all the help and advice possible. The hon. Gentleman demonstrates the importance of having a regime for such matters with common standards and well-understood rules throughout Europe, which are enforced equally by all member states, and that is our policy.

Mr. Lord: Now that our egg industry is probably the most carefully controlled and hygienic in the world, will my hon. Friend give further consideration to the possibility of stamping individual eggs, as we used to do with the old British lion? We are all well aware that it is possible to stamp boxes, but boxes marked "Packed in Britain" may be full of imported eggs. Bearing in mind the privations that the egg industry has had to put up with in recent months in order to reach its present position, is not it time to identify individual eggs for the benefit of consumers and egg producers alike?

Mr. Maclean: I partly disagree with my hon. Friend. It is contrary to the rules to stamp individual eggs and the last time that that was done consumers believed that they were not as fresh as unstamped eggs. I commend to my hon. Friend and to the House the excellent campaigns being run by British egg organisations to draw to consumers' attention the benefits of British eggs. I also commend the report of the Select Committee on Agriculture, which made some excellent comments about the quality of British eggs.

Mr. Ron Davies: Does the Minister now regret not having introduced fuller regulations on the labelling of animal feedstuffs? Does he agree that many farmers would not be using many of the feedstuffs that are fed to pigs and poultry, which contain the rendered remains of scrapie-infected sheep and BSE-infected cattle, if they knew the contents? Why does not he introduce a compulsory labelling scheme so that producers know what they are using?

Mr. Maclean: In addition to producers and consumers knowing what they are using, the hon. Gentleman should know what is happening on the European front. In January this year agreement was reached on the draft directive on ingredient listing for animal feedingstuffs. We are negotiating fuller details on animal feedingstuffs, which will apply throughout Europe. It is not possible, and it would be wrong, for me to try to act unilaterally.

Food Safety

Mr. Roger King: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has had with regard to the accuracy of statements in the book entitled, "Parents Guide to Safe Food".

Mr. Maclean: I understand that the book has yet to be published. However, references that I have seen in the press suggest that some of the subjects are treated in a misleading and alarmist manner. If that is correct, the publication will be of little help to consumers in reaching a balanced judgment about the food available to them. I hope that it will be more accurate than recent allegations made by Parents for Safe Food regarding residues of pesticides in food.

Mr. King: Does my hon. Friend agree that we suffer from an over-supply of experts on food quality and that it is high time that sensible observations were made about the high quality of British food? We could do with fewer reports based on spurious science and inaccurate information peddled by people masquerading as experts. In most people's eyes an expert on this subject is "ex", a has been, and "spert", a person under pressure.

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes a good point. As we are always urged to be as safe as the Americans with regard to pesticides such as Alar, I should tell hon. Members that the American Agriculture Secretary said:
unlike us, the British have decided not to ban EBDCs, because they found there was really no health risk involved. British science is at least as sophisticated as ours. Our government has banned products of significant value to mankind in recent years on the basis of what I consider unpersuasive evidence. We ought not to be doing that.
I agree.

Ms. Quin: As the Minister has mentioned pesticides, will he comment on the recent case of the consumer who thought that he had bought organically grown potatoes but found that they had been treated with tecnazine? Consumers surely have a right to know whether the food products that they buy have been treated with pesticides.

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Lady raises two very good points. First, any pesticides used on crops in this country are safe. If they were not, they would not be authorised. Secondly—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to hon. Members seated below the Gangway, as it seems that I have to do every day lately, not to barrack other right hon. and hon. Members from a sedentary position.

Mr. Maclean: Secondly, of course the consumer has a right not to be conned. If a person thinks that he is buying organic produce, he has a right to be certain that it has been organically grown. We have established the United Kingdom register of organic food producers, and we want to ensure that throughout the EEC, organic labels mean exactly what they say and that there is no cheating. That matter is for the enforcement authorities.

Mr. Boswell: Will my hon. Friend confirm his readiness to consider any objective and scientific evidence that is offered by scare campaigns? Will he equally criticise and treat on their merits any claims unsubstantiated by evidence, or supported by evidence that is unscientific and inadequate?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have an open-door policy, whereby people can come to us with their evidence and views. It is interesting that in the past few weeks, on several occasions when I have called for evidence from the so-called experts who crop up in the media, that evidence has been very slow in coming. In most cases, it has not been presented at all.

Dr. David Clark: Has the Minister seen today's opinion polls, which show, contrary to his assertions, that the majority of British people do not believe that the Government can be trusted "to tell the truth" about food issues? Is not that a scandalous state of affairs? Will the Minister consider abolishing the old-fashioned Agriculture Ministry and replacing it with a modern Ministry of Agriculture and Food, backed up by an independent food standards agency?

Mr. Maclean: It is interesting that the only reform that the hon. Gentleman can suggest is to turn the title of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food into the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries. If that is the substance of his policies, no wonder he has proved that Labour, just like its leader, is unfit for government.

Dairy Farmers

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the prospects for dairy farmers' incomes during 1990–91.

Mr. Gummer: Net income from dairying in 1989–90 was estimated to be 75 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1983–84, before the introduction of quotas. This year, the sector will benefit from the substantial devaluation in the green pound and from the shorter intervention payment delays that took effect earlier this week.

Mr. Pawsey: I thank my right hon. Friend for his extremely helpful reply, which will be widely welcomed by farmers not only in my constituency but throughout the country. Does he expect that the improvement will continue, and what does he think are the industry's long-term prospects?

Mr. Gummer: Many of the factors behind the improvement are continuing. I hope that the dairying industry will take seriously the new challenges of 1992 and of the single market, seek to be more competitive than ever against our European partners, and look to the type of structure that will most help to ensure that.

Mr. Home Robertson: In his calculation of the prospects for dairy farmers' incomes in the coming year, has the Minister taken any account of the certain consequences of his step-by-step resistance to the imposition of effective measures to control the menace of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, including the suggestions put forward by the National Farmers Union? Will he accept that he is meant to be responsible for food as well as agriculture and that his imitation of Corporal Jones running around saying, "Don't panic", is not good enough? Can we have some action to restore confidence in the meat and dairy industry?

Mr. Gummer: If what the hon. Gentleman suggested —step-by-step resistance—was the case he might have some basis for his argument, but the farmers are being


protected by the consumer interest of my Ministry, which puts the consumer first and is therefore able to say categorically, in the words of the chief medical officer, that
British beef is entirely safe to eat".
Farmers know that by putting the consumer first I ensure that their future is safeguarded. The people that farmers and consumers are looking askance at are people such as the hon. Gentleman who seek to spread scandal and fear when it is not necessary.

Scottish Fishing Industry

Mr. Andrew Welsh: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to meet representatives of the Scottish fishing industry to discuss catches.

Mr. Curry: I met Scottish fishermen's representatives at the recent Glasgow fishing exhibition and my noble Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, regularly meets them.

Mr. Welsh: Is the Minister aware that in the past month in my constituency two fishing boats have been sold and another five boats are nearly on the market as the effects of the Government's failure ripple through the industry? Is he aware that I am not talking about big corporations but about small businesses and individuals who are now caught up in the worst of all possible economic worlds? They cannot catch enough fish to run their boats, but they are left with assets which cannot easily be converted. The Government have betrayed the fishing industry. The hon. Gentleman is in charge—what is he going to do about it?

Mr. Curry: That is a load of—[HON. MEMBERS: "Say it."] I was seeking a suitable expression. That is rubbish. The hon. Gentleman cannot expect any Government to guarantee the continued existence in its present shape of any industry in this country. He can, however, expect the Government to ensure that the industry's management is effective and ask the industry to be serious about conservation measures. We have improved management and we are seriously pursuing conservation measures, but we do not intend or claim that we can maintain the industry in its present state. The rationalisation of the industry is necessary, as it recognises.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great problems is the structure of the industry and that the bulk of the catch in Scotland is brought in by large vessels? Small vessels catch only a small proportion of the total catch. It would be extremely difficult for any scheme to benefit those who make such a small contribution to the total catch.

Mr. Curry: As I am sure that my hon. Friend knows, very small vessels are not subject to the licensing and quota arrangements. They remain outside the management system. We are concerned about the future of small fishermen. That is why we are introducing measures that will enable the fleet to rationalise sensibly through a combination of market forces and Government assistance which still represents one of the greatest financial commitments in any industry in this country in comparison with the industry's turnover.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister confirm that he has had representations from fishermen on the west coast of Scotland about fishermen from the east coast who are forced to come round to the west because of restrictions

imposed by the haddock quotas? Will he consider the proposal that west coast fishermen have put forward to introduce local fishing plans to protect their interests and to make prawns a pressure stock?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman knows that a consultation paper has been published on the west coast problem. We have received representations from the industry. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are considering those representations. If we think that further management measures on the west coast are necessary and that they will not penalise efficient fishing methods and add a new layer of bureaucracy for fishermen to cope with, we shall consider them seriously. We recognise that there is a problem.

Mr. Michael Brown: When my hon. Friend meets Scottish fishermen, will he draw to their attention the view expressed to the three Members of Parliament for south Humberside last Friday when we met English fishing industry representatives from Hull and Grimsby? They felt that Scottish fishermen were getting a far better deal at the expense of English fishermen, which underlines exactly the point that my hon. Friend made earlier.

Mr. Curry: I regularly meet representatives of the English fishing industry and, indeed, the whole United Kingdom fishing industry. I have never felt that they are short of words and I am sure that they are capable of expressing those sentiments to Scottish fishermen.

Mr. Robert Hughes: As the Minister has acknowledged that the fishing industry is going through perilous times and that drastic and painful restructuring is needed, with which the industry is prepared to co-operate, why does he continue to set his face against the decommissioning scheme and the temporary lay-off scheme so that restructuring could be carried out sensibly and the people concerned receive proper compensation? Do we have to invent mad fish disease before he is prepared to give the matter his attention?

Mr. Curry: If the hon. Gentleman wants a sensible restructuring of the industry, a decommissioning scheme is just about the last way to go about it. Capacity would not necessarily be reduced and people would not necessarily leave the fishing fleet as we should like. It would be a very expensive option. It would be much more sensible to pursue a twin course. First, we must give fishermen the right to make their own decisions. I recommend to the hon. Gentleman the licensing aggregation proposals. Secondly, we must pursue the adoption of conservation measures at the European level. We shall pursue those courses and they will result in an efficient, well-structured British fleet which is competitive on a European scale.

Emergency Orders

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the incurring of non-recoverable losses by farmers due to the implementation of emergency orders.

Mr. Maclean: I have received representations from a number of sources—including, both directly and indirectly, the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and food industry interests.

Mr. Coombs: I accept the need for emergency Government powers, where appropriate, to protect food safety, but will my hon. Friend confirm that many of the farmers covered by these powers were found subsequently not to be affected by contamination and were unable to recover their losses? Will my hon. Friend look carefully, sympathetically and urgently at introducing legislation to try to rectify that problem?

Mr. Maclean: We always look carefully at the effects of any of the orders or decisions that we take. If my hon. Friend is referring to the recent problem of lead in feed in the west country, he will be aware that the Government's first priority is to protect public health. We had to act on information received from the feed companies. The farmer's first recourse must be to the perpetrators of the incident—those who supplied them with the feed, and their suppliers. That is where the liability for error lies.

Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister accept that his bumptious music hall turn performance at the Dispatch Box today is an insult to the public, who are seriously worried about food safety issues? Will he at last come to the Dispatch Box and speak for consumers instead of acting as a mouthpiece for the British food industry? Does he not understand that by talking so much rubbish in defence of vested interests, and by promoting the eating of rubbish, he is doing damage to the health of this country's population?

Mr. Maclean: It was nice today during food questions to come across an example of one of the things that we have been facing this week—the nonsense that we have heard from Opposition spokesmen. The hon. Gentleman has demonstrated that he has been going around as has his hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), like a demented Private Fraser from "Dad's Army" saying, "We're all doomed." It is a doomsday scenario. That is the kind of rubbish and nonsense that we are hearing from Opposition Members. The hon. Gentleman is wrong, just as his hon. Friends have been wrong all week. I chair the consumer panel, I meet consumers who come into my office and I represent consumer interests.

Agricultural Development Advisory Service

Mr. Marland: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the head of the Agricultural Development Advisory Service to discuss the future of the Agricultural Development Advisory Service.

Mr. Gummer: I regularly meet the director general of the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service to discuss a range of matters including organisational issues.

Mr. Marland: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is considerable disquiet in the agricultural industry about the future of ADAS. Will he undertake to discuss any major moves with the chairmen of the regional panels?

Mr. Gummer: ADAS is always a matter of discussion in our meetings with the regional panels. I assure my hon. Friend that I will continue those discussions. We are

pleased with the way in which ADAS has started to respond to the increase in its charging facilities and with the effect that it is having on the agriculture industry.

Mr. Tony Banks: When the Secretary of State met the head of the advisory service, did he by any chance discuss the growing of vegetables? Is he aware how offensive his recent remarks were when he suggested that people who were vegetarian were somehow indulging in unnatural practices and acting against the word of the Lord, or words to that effect? May we assume that those words were bovine spongiform-induced? Does the Secretary of State intend to put a health warning on carrots, telling people that they may be damning their eternal souls if they eat them, or does he intend to apologise to the House and in particular to Mr. Speaker who is a well-known vegetarian?

Mr. Gummer: Mr. Speaker, you and I have corresponded to some end on that matter, and I repeat what I said to you—that I eat vegetables with great pleasure. I object only to those people who say that I should be a vegetarian. I do not want to make them carnivorous, although man does appear naturally so to be.

Green Pound

Mr. Speller: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further actions he intends to take to help British agriculture while the green pound remains in existence.

Mr. Gummer: The Government are committed to ending disparities between green and market rates of exchange of the pound by the end of 1992 at the latest. To achieve that, we shall be seeking further substantial devaluations of the green pound between now and then.

Mr. Speller: I thank my right hon. Friend for his hard work and the success that he achieved recently at the Commission. May I also remind him of another way in which he could help? Last July we lost an appeal with the Commission to extend the less-favoured areas. If that appeal could be pushed forward so that we get a reply in under 12 months, it would be a great help to the farming community in areas such as my constituency.

Mr. Gummer: I assure my hon. Friend that we are seeking to ensure that that review is completed as soon as possible. We are constantly pressing the Commission for the result.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister accept that, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, the underlying rate of inflation in Britain is within a percentage point of that in Europe, so the case for remaining outside the exchange rate mechanism has exploded? Does he recognise that British agriculture will be tremendously assisted by immediate entry in to the ERM?

Mr. Gummer: The Government are committed to joining the ERM at the time when it is right for us to do so. British agriculture would be harmed considerably if we chose the wrong moment. The hon. Gentleman will know that my European credentials are clear, but I do not wish to damage the British agricultural industry merely to follow the course of action that the hon. Gentleman wishes at a time when it would not be helpful.

Food Prices

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the movement in food prices in the last five years; what was the equivalent movement between 1974 and 1979; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Curry: Over the past five years the annual increase in food prices has been 4·4 per cent. That compares with an increase of 16·5 per cent. per year between 1974 and 1979.

Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend underline again and again and again that food prices rise much faster under Labour Governments than ever they do under Conservative Governments? Will he use the present favourable conditions to phase out battery farming and intensive farming wherever possible? Above all, will he let the housewives know that a Labour Government would cost them a fortune?

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is right. The Labour party has spent most of this afternoon pretending to be the friend of the consumer, but any Government who presided over rising food prices of that order are the enemy of every consumer in the country.

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds to discuss matters within its responsibilities.

Mr. Maclean: The Government have commissioned extensive research—[Interruption.] I am sorry—I should be answering question No. 14. My noble Friend the Minister of State, Baroness Trumpington, met the RSPB on 14 May 1990.

Dr. Howells: When the Minister next meets the director of the RSPB, will he discuss with him the wholesale slaughter of wild birds on the hillsides of mid-Glamorgan as a result of fires sweeping across that area, usually deliberately started by teenagers? There have been at least 1,400 such fires in the past two months. They are endangering people living in the valleys, who are left unattended by fire engines which are stuck up on the mountain dealing with the fires. Will the Minister discuss that and the effect that it is having on wildlife in the area?

Mr. Maclean: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. The whole House will deplore anyone deliberately starting fires—whether in urban, rural or hillside areas—endangering, I presume, not only wildlife but human life. We at the Ministry will use our best endeavours to draw the problem to the attention of all concerned and hope that it will be stamped out as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mr. Hayward: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 May.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings today, including one with President Mubarak of Egypt.

Mr. Hayward: Does my right hon. Friend regret the rise in unemployment announced earlier today as it is an indication of an increase in unit labour costs? Has she noticed, however, that in the regions of the north and the midlands, and in Scotland and Wales, unemployment has continued to fall?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The seasonally adjusted figure has risen by just over 1,000, although the headline total is down by 20,000. As my hon. Friend knows, unemployment has fallen by some 250,000 in the last year and we still have more people in jobs than ever before, but there is a danger about unit labour costs rising—if they continue to rise more than those of our competitors, we shall see unemployment rising. I notice that in this country last year unit labour costs rose by 5 per cent. while in the Federal Republic of Germany and in Japan they stayed absolutely static, in the United States they rose by only 2 per cent., and in France they actually fell by 2 per cent. That is a measure of the task that we have to face.

Mr. Kinnock: May I take this opportunity of telling the Prime Minister that the whole House is united in its condemnation of the terrorist bombings this week and that the whole House will want to offer condolences to the family of Sergeant Chapman, who was murdered yesterday, and to all who have been injured? May I also say once again that no Government formed from either side of this House will ever concede to violence?

The Prime Minister: I agree very much with the right hon. Gentleman that the vicious and sick minds that plan and execute these attacks bring shame and discredit on themselves and their cause and on all who associate with and support them. The fact is that they all have a full democratic vote which they can exercise in just the same way as anyone else. Because they do not like the result, they try to bomb and maim people out of it. We cannot tolerate that and we must and will do all in our power to fight these terrible and brutal attacks—and to restore order once again and full democracy to Northern Ireland—and of course, here, where they are now trying to pursue their deadly attacks.

Q2. Mr. Moate: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Moate: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should be wise to listen carefully to the words of the Leader of the Opposition when he talks about credit controls? After all, did not the previous Labour


Government have extensive experience of using credit controls, exchange controls, devaluation and high interest rates? Yet they still managed to achieve inflation of almost 27 per cent. We do not need to look into the crystal ball when we can look at the book.

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that in the modern economy, with the amount of freedom that we now have, credit controls will not work. A former Treasury Minister, the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), had it right when he said:
The Labour Party idea that you can have credit controls is rubbish. There is no way you can control credit except by controlling the price of credit, and the price of credit is bank rate.

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Mullin: Has the Prime Minister read the speech by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in Tokyo on Monday, in which he boasted that Britain had some of the cheapest unit labour costs in western Europe? Does she agree that whatever the cause for today's rise in unemployment it can therefore have nothing to do with wages?

The Prime Minister: I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) the latest figures from last year. Unfortunately, our unit labour costs are now rising faster than those of many of our competitors and that is serious. In Japan and in Germany, unit labour costs have not risen at all. In the United States they have risen by 2 per cent., in France they have fallen by 2 per cent., and in this country they have risen by 5 per cent. That means that we are taking out more pay than we are putting back in productivity. That can only have a damaging effect on jobs in the future.

Sir Ian Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend consider that it is feasible, desirable or in the public interest that, in effect, the motor vehicle should be used as an instrument for enforcing total prohibition on the roads? If not, does she agree that as the most modern, accurate and sophisticated technology is now available to enable the motorist to ensure that he or she does not approach the limit, it should be used in the same way as the motorist uses the speedometer? If my right hon. Friend is with me thus far, will she encourage the Home Office to abandon its ancient policy of proceeding in front of all new technology at 4 mph with a red flag?

The Prime Minister: I have been trying to follow my hon. Friend without lurching in logic, but I am finding it a little difficult to do so. I know that he is always anxious to make full use of the very latest technology and I will refer the matter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Q4. Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Michie: Is the Prime Minister aware that some school governors operating the pilot scheme for the local management of schools are resigning and that in some

cases, such as Meersbrook Bank school in my constituency, they are not setting budgets because they cannot use budgets which mean sacking experienced teachers? How can the Prime Minister call for better education and training while agreeing with a budget which has forced school governors to sack experienced teachers?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept that. Many schools—possibly most—welcome the opportunity to control their own budgets. Head teachers are highly educated people who are well able and willing to take the responsibility that comes with freedom and they much prefer to have the say over their own school budgets. The complaint used to be that head teachers had control over only about £3,000 a year. Now they and the governors have control over the school budget and I am sure that they will use it better than it has ever been used before.

Mr. Butcher: As a staunch believer in the Act of Union, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be in the interests of a fair-minded and even-handed approach between the peoples of England and Scotland if there were to be an increase in the number of English constituencies so that English Members of Parliament might enjoy serving constituencies of the same size as those in Scotland?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has clearly asked a fundamental question, which it would take us a long time to consider in the House. I cannot see us bringing in any legislation ahead of the next election to put that into action.

Mr. Carlile: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Carlile: Does the Prime Minister support the Gladstonian doctrine of self-determination for all nations including small ones, or is she so dizzy with big-power politics as to appease the Soviet Union, particularly with regard to the Baltic states, and especially Lithuania?

The Prime Minister: I support the doctrine of self-determination for fully separate nations as set out by the United Nations. As for Lithuania, as I have said from the Dispatch Box before, we support its right to independence. We have never accepted that it was annexed legally by the Soviet Union. President Gorbachev also says that those states have a right to be independent. The difference of opinion between Lithuania and President Gorbachev concerns how that is to be brought about. It is a pity to get stuck on such matters when both sides can get down to practical discussions about how to bring independence fully into practical being. I hope that the Prime Minister of Lithuania goes to Moscow with proposals, as we all support that independence coming about by discussion.

Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great interest—especially in my constituency—in the Government's review of the community charge? Will she assure the House and my constituents that the Government will look sympathetically at all the representations now being put to them?

The Prime Minister: The Government are doing precisely that. There are several varying representations.


Some will have to be tackled in the longer term rather than in the period coming up to next year's community charge, but some can be dealt with before then. We shall make a statement to the House when we are ready.

Mr. Haynes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Haynes: Mr. Speaker, Sir, is the Prime Minister aware that in the past few weeks she has not had a very good time at Prime Minister's question time—have you, duckie? Is she also aware that the morale of the teaching profession is falling lower and lower because of Government policies? Is she further aware that I have two daughters and a son-in-law who are teachers and doing a first-class job? It is time that she got the Secretary of State for Education and Science by the scruff of the neck and dragged him out of negotiations which ought to be taking place between the authorities and the trade unions to negotiate proper earnings for teachers—then all our children will receive a better education.

The Prime Minister: Bearing in mind that all hon. Members address their remarks to you, Mr. Speaker, I thought that the hon. Gentleman addressed you by a rather endearing term. I believe that I heard him correctly, as I usually do.
With regard to the more serious aspects of the hon. Gentleman's question, I remind him that teachers are better paid than ever before. Their current pay, when it is fully implemented in January, will be 12 per cent. above

Houghton, which was the largest salary that the Labour party aimed to attain. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have also put forward new proposals for determining teachers' pay. In the meantime, I should point out that most teachers with seven years' experience will be at the top of the scale, and have a big incentive allowance: their salary will be £19,000, the deputy head of a typical secondary school will be earning £26,000—[Interruption.] I must answer the hon. Gentleman's question thoroughly, especially as so many members of his family are involved in teaching, and I am sure that they are very ambitious. The head of a typical secondary school will be earning nearly £34,000.

Mr. Gow: Has the proper condemnation by Her Majesty's Ministers of the two terrorist attacks in London this week been accompanied by an equal condemnation from Ministers in the Irish Republic? If those suspected of responsibility for the attacks in London should escape to the Irish Republic, in the belief—understandable—that they would find safe haven there, how confident is my right hon. Friend that a proper request for extradition would be upheld by the Irish Supreme Court?

The Prime Minister: I wish that I could answer my hon. Friend by saying that I would be confident that an extradition order would be upheld, but I cannot do so, as he knows. If justice is to be meted out, it is vital that we should be able to extradite people so that they have no safe haven in the Irish Republic. It is also vital, from the point of view of the police and all citizens of this country and Northern Ireland, that we fully uphold the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

Beef

The following question stood upon the Paper:

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has held with the organisation, Parents for Safe Food, with regard to its allegations concerning the safety of British meat.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): My officials offered some time ago to meet Parents for Safe Food to discuss its concern about BSE and meat, but the organisation has not taken up this offer, nor has it submitted any scientific evidence that we can study.
I am naturally concerned to ensure that the public know that the clear and consistent advice of the best scientific opinion is that British beef is safe.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.: This is an important matter, on which I am sure the House will wish to hear the Minister.

Mr. Gummer: I refer the House to the statement that the chief medical officer made yesterday. He said that he had taken advice from the leading scientific and medical experts in this field. To quote his words, "They have consistently advised me in the past that there is no scientific justification for not eating British Beef and this continues to be their advice.".
The Government have tackled the problem of BSE with a carefully considered and coherent programme of measures based on the advice of the most authoritative and independent scientific experts.
First, we destroy any animal that is found to have BSE and no part of it enters the food chain in any way. Secondly, any cattle entering the slaughterhouse have the specified offals that could harbour the agent removed. Those offals are not allowed to be used in any food or food products. Thirdly, almost two years ago we stopped the feeding of ruminant protein to cows and other ruminants. We thus cut off what is considered to be the source of infection.
In all this, we have followed the best independent scientific advice available. Even our critics must support this clear policy of taking that advice. The health of the public is our overriding concern.
There are always those who want us to take their advice and not the advice of the experts. I have been asked, for example, to ban the use of ruminant protein in pig and poultry diets. Doctors and scientists see no justification for that. Some have suggested that there should be a ban on breeding from the offspring of BSE-infected cattle. The Southwood committee did not recommend this. But I was concerned to ensure that all up-to-date information was taken into account so I referred the question back to the Tyrrell committee. It confirms fully what Southwood said. I am placing a full statement of its advice on this point in the Library.
We have taken action to deal with the public health concerns and the animal aspects of BSE on the basis of the best independent scientific advice. We have published that advice together with full information on the disease and how it is being tackled. We shall continue to keep the public fully informed. We have taken all necessary

measures to tackle this disease. There is certainly no justification for the alarmist reporting that has appeared over the past few days. As the chief medical officer has confirmed, British beef can continue to be eaten safely by everyone—adults and children alike.

Mr. Mitchell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful and detailed statement, which will be reassuring to the many consumers who have been alarmed by much of the speculative comment in the press in recent days. Will my right hon. Friend give the House the absolute assurance that to protect the interest of the consumer, he will base his policy on the best medical and scientific advice from independent expert sources and eschew some of the quack solutions and quick fixes that have been suggested in recent days?

Mr. Gummer: There must be two basic rules behind our action. First, consumer safety comes first and last. Secondly, our actions must be based on the best available medical and scientific advice. I assure the House that I shall not deviate from those two bases.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I am sure that the Minister will agree that the irresponsible statements that have been made in the past fortnight about the BSE issue, without any proof or evidence, have caused consumers and producers alike a great deal of concern. To try to end this problem, will the Minister advise the Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture to interview scientists on both sides of the argument and to produce a report as soon as possible that will clarify the position? Does the Minister further agree that British beef today is better and healthier than ever?

Mr. Gummer: I very much welcome the Select Committee's inquiry and hope that the Chairman will take the hon. Gentleman's advice. I also hope that those people who have pontificated on television will now send the Tyrrell committee the research material that they claim to have so that it can be considered. I further hope that before interviewing people as "experts", the BBC, ITV and others will ask, first, whether those people have published their evidence in journals that their peers can check and, secondly, whether they have submitted their evidence to the Tyrrell committee. If those interviewed cannot say that, I hope that they will be interviewed not as experts but merely as people who have an idea or two.

Mr. Paul Marland: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) in thanking my right hon. Friend for his trenchant reply. I hope that it will do much to reassure the general public that British beef is safe. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is outrageous that so many unsubstantiated claims have been made about BSE and British beef and that Opposition Members are flying in the face of sound scientific evidence, preferring to be guided by a bogus professor and a dead cat?

Mr. Gummer: We must not underestimate the anxiety that people are bound to have about an unpleasant disease that we wish to eradicate and which we must ensure is no longer in the British herd. Having said that, I should add that those who seek to make capital out of the perfectly natural concern of the public should look most carefully at their motives and wonder whether they are putting party political points before any real concern.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: As scrapie is known to be transmitted from ewe to lamb and as BSE is closely related to—indeed, derived from—scrapie, is not there every danger that BSE could be transmitted from cow to calf? Why do the Government hide behind Southwood and Tyrrell and not listen to the National Farmers Union president Sir Simon Gourlay, who wants the Government to introduce a slaughter policy of the calves of BSE-affected animals with 100 per cent. compensation?

Mr. Gummer: Although the hon. Gentleman is a doctor, he will agree that he is not an expert on this subject. He will also agree that on several occasions he has told me that I should not listen to the National Farmers Union but put the interests of the consumer first. Now he has said something peculiar. He said that I should not hide behind the opinions of the experts. I hope that he will read carefully what the expert Tyrrell committee said to me. It said that there may be positive disadvantages in taking the measures that the hon. Gentleman advocates.
The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but he is not an expert. He may be a doctor, but he is not an expert. I should prefer to take the views of doctors who are experts than those of a doctor who is not an expert.

Mr.. William Hague: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents have expressed great support for his approach to these matters, but great surprise at the reference to him as a lout by an Opposition spokesman on a television programme? Would not that description be better applied to some of the academics and journalists who have written about the matter than to a Minister who is dealing with it responsibly?

Mr. Gummer: The serious issues that we are discussing are not helped by the abusive comments that have been made on television by the Opposition spokesman. We must deal with the matter seriously. I hope that the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) will read the teleprint of what he said and perhaps take the opportunity to apologise. The matter is too serious to make that type of cheap comment.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the staff of the Moredun research institute in my constituency on its world-leading research on scrapie? Will he further condemn the cuts in the budget of that institute and guarantee to review the budget and increase it as necessary?

Mr. Gummer: I willingly admit how much we rely on the work that has been done by that institute. That is part of the reason why I have made it clear that the money that is necessary for research into both scrapie and BSE and across the board will be available wherever it is required. We must find the best answers to these questions. The hon. Gentleman is a responsible man and I hope that he will help by pointing out that the points that I have put forward today are fully supported by expert opinion, including that of the people at the research institute in his constituency.

Sir Hector Monro: May I thank my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr.

Maclean) for their outstanding efforts to bring home to the British public the fact that there is no risk in eating British beef? Will he personally contact all the local authorities that have banned British beef? Will he make every effort to stop people pontificating on television and in the media without any scientific evidence?

Mr. Gummer: I have already contacted all the local authorities with the full background briefing. I have given them a fax number so that they can fax to a central control point any questions they may have. It is noticeable that Westminster city council first banned beef without considering any of the evidence. When it considered the evidence, beef went straight back on the menu. That must show that, when one reads and listens to what the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food say, the evidence is overwhelming that what we are doing is right. The chief medical officer is perfectly correct in saying that British beef is safe to eat for adults, children and NHS patients.

Mr. Martyn Jones (Clywd, South-West): I do not profess to be an expert on this subject. We have had a definition of "expert" as "ex" being the unknown factor and "spurt" being a little drip under pressure, and we are bandying the word about rather too much. Evidence shows that once the scrapie agent has passed through one set of laboratory animals, in this case hamsters, it would infect a rabbit, although not directly. That particular property of the organism is worrying. Has the Minister taken it into account? As the NFU and consumers are both asking for the same thing, the Minister should take on board what Simon Gourlay is telling him.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman should he clear what the NFU said in its statement. I respect his knowledge of the scientific method, acquired from his own expertise. The information of which he speaks has been available for nearly 20 years and it has certainly been taken into account. Because I take the matter extremely seriously, I am happy to pass to the Tyrrell committee any information that he would like me to take fully and specifically into account. The committee's purpose is to bring the best group of experts together to look at the evidence and to advise.
I hope that the Opposition will follow the hon. Gentleman's view, which I have read in the press and believe to be accurate, which is to consider the situation as impartially as possible. Certainly, I am willing to take any sensible advice from him or anyone else, because we should all be involved in the eradication of BSE from Britain, and from animals in Britain and, above all, in the continued protection of the British public.

Sir Richard Body: Although I appreciate that my right hon. Friend is taking the matter seriously, does he agree that, if his officials continue to go about the country advising us in the farming community how to keep our animals in ever more intensive conditions, we shall face serious risks because we cannot continue to rely on the present level of antibiotics?

Mr. Gummer: I have read my hon. Friend's article in today' Evening Standard and many of the concerns that he raises are serious and are being addressed in a number of policy changes that we are making, not least the important proposals on extensification and the like. At a time when over-production rather than shortage is the key


word in farming communities we certainly have the opportunity to look most carefully at what we do. I have already said publicly that I believe that feeding the ruminant to animals that are naturally herbivore is wrong because it is contrary to what would occur naturally. That is the line which I wish to draw and I believe that there is a real response to that in the public mind.

Dr. David Clark: I wish to clarify the allegation made today in the House that I accused the Minister of being a lout. I was most upset when I heard that reported about me. We have a sound clip of the news item. I did not say that the Minister was a lout and I am sure that if he checks, he will find that that is not the case. I said that he had done nowt. If southern stenographers cannot understand the northern vernacular, I do not apologise for that.
May I take this opportunity of saying once again today that the Minister has done nowt? Does not he realise that his indecision and vacillation this week have lost the general public's confidence in beef? It has threatened the long-term future of our cattle industry. What the Minister said today has done nothing to reassure the general public or the farmers. The Minister made great play, and I take his point, of the need to follow the recommendation of his own expert committee, the Tyrrell committee. If he takes that line, he cannot pick and choose advice from that committee. Why will he not implement the recommendation of the committee and take a random sample of routinely slaughtered cows so that we can judge the extent of BSE in the British herd and plan accordingly? In the meantime will he support the call for not feeding offals to pigs and chickens and to our pets?

Mr. Gummer: As I understand the hon. Gentleman's policy, it is to have regulations about Britain's food set by an independent group that is outside the Government. No doubt the hon. Gentleman would expect to take the advice of such a group. He says that when we ask an expert committee about, for example, the feeding of animal matter to animals that eat it, and the committee says that we should do so and there is no justification for not doing so, we should ignore the official advice. I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman advances that proposition. He must accept that advice from such an independent body must be followed in a matter as serious as this.
The recommendations to which the hon. Gentleman refers are part of the Tyrrell recommendations for research and were in three groups. The first was about priority research, the second was about research that is not high priority but ordinary priority, and the third was about low-priority research. I have already instituted all the high-priority and normal-priority research and I am now going through the low-priority research. I am following that order, first, because the expert committee asked me to do it like that. That is why it had three sets of priorities. Secondly, there is a shortage of people with the expert knowledge that is needed to carry out this research. I have therefore placed those people in areas that the Tyrrell committee said were most important for public health reasons. I think that the House will accept that.
The hon. Gentleman has clarified that he did not call me a lout but said that I had done nowt. He cannot have been listening for the last 20 minutes. If he had, he would have heard me say that I have done everything that the expert advisers have asked. Indeed, I have gone further because I take from every healthy animal all the specified offals in order to provide yet another protection. It is entirely untrue to say that I have done nowt.

Business of the House

Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are in the middle of business questions. I am amazed at hon. Members who have been here long enough to know that I do not take points of order before business questions.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 21 MAY—Opposition Day (12th Allotted Day). Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate on Ravenscraig, followed by a debate on bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Motion to take note of EC documents relating to the social charter. Details will be given in the Official Report.
TUESDAY 22 MAY—Opposition Day (13th Allotted Day, 1st part). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Social and Liberal Democrats entitled "Alterations and Amendments to the Poll Tax".
Remaining stages of the Town and Country Planning Bill [Lords], the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservations Areas) Bill [Lords], the Planning (Consequential Provisions) Bill [Lords], and the Planning (Hazarclous Substances) Bill [Lords], which are consolidation measures.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 23 MAY—Motion for the spring Adjournment.
Motion on the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order.
THURSDAY 24 MAY—Adjournment debates.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I indicate that the business for the first week after the spring Adjournment will be as follows:
TUESDAY 5 JUNE—There will be a debate on the Army on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 6 JUNE —Opposition Day (14th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion; subject for debate to be announced.
THURSDAY 7 JUNE —Remaining stages of the Food Safety Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 8 JUNE—Private Members' motions.[Monday 21 May 1990


Relevant European Community documents


(a) 9978/89
Action Programme on Community Social Charter


(b) Unnumbered
Community Charter of Fundamental Social Rights


Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 11-vii ( 1989–90), para 4 and HC 11-xvi (1989–90), para 1
(b) HC 11-ii ( 1989–90), para 31

Dr. Cunningham: I thank the Leader of the House for his thoughtful announcement of the business for the week following the Whitsun recess. That is a great help to all

hon. Members. May we be told before the recess exactly when the Government intend to proceed with the division of the Select Committee on Social Services into two Committees, one on health and one on social services? There has been an extraordinarily long delay in the implementation of that decision. It is of considerable importance to hon. Members in all parties that the two new Select Committees should be established and allowed to get on with their work as soon as possible. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us his intentions before the Whitsun recess?
May I also request information about the Government's intentions for the 21 poll tax-capping orders that the House will have to consider? I must make it clear that it would be intolerable if the House were asked to decide, in one short debate, the budgets and poll tax levels of 21 separate local authorities, covering services used by millions of people. It is unprecedented—it does not happen in any other country—that a national Parliament should decide these matters. It would be unacceptable to deal with all those orders in one and a half hours after 10 o'clock. I urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider providing more time, preferably in prime time, for those important debates.
We shall have a debate in Opposition time next week on the devastating news for Scotland of the proposed closures at Ravenscraig. Can it be made clear who will be speaking for the Government, and exactly what the Government's policy is towards those closures? We hear a different story about the Government's attitude towards the Ravenscraig job losses from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry from that given by the Secretary of State for Scotland. The House and the people of Scotland, given the importance of Ravenscraig to the Scottish economy, are entitled to a clear and unequivocal statement of Government policy on the Scottish steel industry, exactly who is deciding that policy, and whether the Secretary of State for Scotland's position in the Government has now become untenable.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: On the hon. Gentleman's first point about the future of the Select Committee on Social Services, I have already given positive indications to the House about our intentions. I hope that the House will be patient for a little longer.
On the hon. Gentleman's point about charge capping, as he appreciates, it is now open to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to lay before the House the draft order setting authorities' caps. He is considering carefully how and when to proceed, but, as was made clear to the court on his behalf, caps will not finally be set for the authorities involved in the judicial review before 18 June. As to when those debates should be conducted, there is room for more than one view, apart from that expressed by the hon. Gentleman.
The Government's speakers for the Opposition's debate on Monday will be made plain in due course, but there is no doubt that the Government's policy is that of the Government as a whole. The first and essential feature to notice is that the decisions taken in relation to Ravenscraig are being taken by the company on commercial grounds and the Government will be responding as Government, not seeking to influence those decisions beyond the powers that they have, which are extremely limited.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. As the House knows, I am always reluctant to curtail business questions, but we have an important statement and a debate in which we have to deal with many amendments after this. Therefore, I propose to allow business questions to continue until 4.30. If hon. Members ask single questions, all of them should be accommodated within that time. Mr. Harry Greenway.

Hon. Members: First again.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I have been last for the past two weeks.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should know that those who are called last on Thursday tend to be called early the next.

Mr. Greenway: May we have an early debate on gipsies and the legislation relating to them? There has been a large encampment of gipsies and tinkers at the side of the A40 in my constituency causing great harassment to the people of Greenford and Northolt. May we have an early debate on the need to improve legislation to get those people moving away from other people's homes?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The operation of existing legislation gives rise to concern in more than one constituency, but I cannot offer the prospect of an early debate.

Mr. Greville Janner: Why is there no opportunity next week or the week after to debate the disgusting, disgraceful and dirty conditions in which the Vietnamese refugees are forced to live in Hong Kong and which have given rise to the recent riots? Does not the Leader of the House see that the way in which those refugees are kept is unworthy of us, that they are treated as prisoners by people who are trained to look after criminals, and that we are asking for more riots unless we treat people properly in those camps?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no immediate prospect of a debate on that topic, although it has been brought before the House on more than one occasion, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows. He must acknowledge that, however hard the people in charge of the camps may try, the conditions there are bound to become increasingly difficult until there is a satisfactory solution to the problem of how to achieve the speedy return of many of those people their own country.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my right hon. and learned Friend share my surprise that once again the Opposition have not chosen one of their Supply days to discuss their new policy review? That would give Conservative Members the opportunity to point out that, if tax rates had remained as they were in May 1979, every man on average earnings with two children in Britain would be paying £1,000 a year more in income tax. We find it strange that the Opposition, having always supported high taxes, now seem to be in favour of low taxes without explaining how they could spend more and yet cut taxes.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend draws attention to a point of legitimate importance. The House had an opportunity to discuss that on Monday on the motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells).

Mr. James Wallace: The Leader of the House told the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that whoever speaks for the Government in Monday's debate on Ravenscraig will enunciate the policy of the whole Government. Before that debate, will the Leader of the House draw to the relevant person's attention the words of the Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday, when he said:
we shall seek to persuade British Steel to reconsider its proposal in the interests both of the company and of its work force."—[Official Report, 16 May 1990; Vol. 172. c. 887.]?
Does the Leader of the House intend to keep us waiting, or will that be the policy that the Government will enunciate on Monday?

Sir Geoffery Howe: The decision was taken on commercial grounds, in the light of the company's judgment of market conditions, and it must remain a matter for the company's commercial judgment. I understand that the decision is not due to be implemented until the first half of next year. Any right hon. or hon. Members who are concerned about the matter, whether or not they are in government, will no doubt bring to the company's attention any commercial arguments for reviewing its decision.

Mr. Michael Latham: What has happened to the debate on the Police (Amendment) Regulations 1990? As they are extremely unwelcome to many policemen in my constituency, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that he will bring the regulations before the House for proper debate shortly?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my hon. Friend knows, I have been seeking a suitable opportunity for just such a debate. Although one was not included in the business for next week that I announced today, I propose to arrange a debate at an early opportunity.

Mr. George Foulkes: Does not the Leader of the House realise that, in his replies to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), he contradicted what was said by the Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday? The right hon. and learned Gentleman has in fact disowned the Secretary of State for Scotland. I understand that he was disowned also by the Prime Minister's spokesman this morning. Will the deputy Prime Minister confirm that that was the case, and tell the House whether the Secretary of State for Scotland will come to the Dispatch Box to make a personal statement?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Government's policy is consistent and is held by all members of the Government. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland made a statement to the House about Ravenscraig yesterday, and the House will have a further opportunity to debate it on Monday.

Sir Alan Glyn: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the situation in the Baltic states, particularly in Lithuania. Will it be possible to arrange an early debate on how this country can best help them economically and with supplies in what is a very difficult situation?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the


Prime Minister continue to stress how important it is that moves should be taken to reduce, not heighten, tension in order to reach a solution acceptable to the people of Lithuania.

Mr.. Ron Brown: As the Leader of the House may know, Shell intends to sell a subsidiary, Mitchell Gas, based in my constituency to Calor Gas. If that is allowed to go through, it will mean that there will be a virtual monopoly in Scotland, with one firm controlling the supply of certain gases, including butane and other gases important to industry and to people in general. Will the Leader of the House arrange a special debate next week? More importantly, will he block that takeover bid, bearing in mind the fact that the Government apparently believe in market forces?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall bring that matter to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Richard Holt: Will my right hon. and learned Friend resist the temptation to say, "There are Adjournment debates coming up"? Will he consider the situation on the Isle of Man, where we have had a Barlow Clowes all over again, and where there has been malfeasance of the worst possible kind, yet the Government are doing nothing about it? Is it not time that the Government exercised their responsibilities to the Isle of Man far more rigidly, brought to book those who have committed crimes, and made sure that everyone who has lost money is fully and properly compensated?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall bring my hon. Friend's points to the attention of those responsible for the enforcement of law on the Isle of Man.

Mr. Tony Benn: Are we to have a debate on Europe before the Dublin summit? The Leader of the House will know that there is great interest in that meeting among right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House—not always following precisely party lines. What might be determined in our name could affect the future of the House of Commons, vis-a-vis not only Brussels but the Executive. It will not be satisfactory to be told after the Dublin summit that the Prime Minister has entered into agreements that might affect the future of the House of Commons in its relations with Europe. That matter is causing great concern. Will the Leader of the House give an absolutely clear assurance that the House will be able to give its view before the Prime Minister gives her decision?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman may recollect that that topic has been the subject of study by the Select Committee on Procedure and it reported on it some months ago. In the course of the next week I hope to make available the Government's response to its recommendations, which will bear upon the points that the right hon. Gentleman has raised.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Could my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for a debate in the House on the extraordinary behaviour of the producers of the BBC programme "On The Record"? Apparently, an opinion poll which showed overwhelming support for the Prime

Minister among Conservative councillors was suppressed when the poll, seemingly, did not suit the purposes of the programme's producers.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my hon. Friend appreciates as well as anyone, the commissioning of research and the selection of material for use in programmes are matters for the editorial judgment of the broadcasters. I hope that they will take account of the views expressed by hon. Members, including those that my hon. Friend has just expressed.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the financial crisis facing so many health authorities, in particular Gwynedd health authority, which is facing a £4 million shortfall, leading to the closure of wards and the elimination of services, and is hitting disabled people, the young and the old? In addition, six hospital closures have been announced for the next 12 months. May we have an early debate on that subject?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman the prospect of an early debate, but I shall bring the matters he has raised to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Sir Ian Lloyd: The Leader of the House will doubtless have seen the extremely disturbing report in yesterday's edition of The Times, based on evidence given to a United States Senate committee, that the cost of dealing with the greenhouse effect could absorb the entire national income of the United States. In view of that report, and the report of the committee in the other place on the scientific background to the greenhouse effect, may we have an early debate on that important subject. which has vast policy implications?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not doubt the importance of the issue my hon. Friend has mentioned, as it raises many questions. I cannot offer the prospect of an early debate specifically on that issue, but I shall bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House make time for a statement or a debate on the question of the parliamentary building across the road? Is he aware that there has been considerable delay and that one of the problems concerns the 40 marble fireplaces in rooms for Members of Parliament. Due to the Government's attitude to manufacturing industry in Britain, we have no one to produce such fireplaces, with the result the Italians have been called in to provide these £20,000 marble fireplaces—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Each?"] Yes, £20,000 each. The contractors in Italy have said that they would like to provide the fireplaces but that they need to use Italian labour. No wonder the unemployment figures are beginning to rise.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman will understand that all matters relating to the provision of the new building across the road, including phase 1, are under the closely attended management of the New Building Sub-Committee of the House.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure us that we shall have an early opportunity to debate the electoral processes in central and eastern Europe, given that they will come to a head


next month? Will he particularly bear in mind the concerns of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have met Romanian parliamentary candidates about the election there? Will he reiterate the Government's position in that regard?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that matter once again. The House has expressed its anxiety on more than one occasion about the manner in which those elections are being and are likely to be conducted. As he knows, provision has been made for the presence of independent observers there to assess the standards to which he has drawn our attention.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement next week from the Secretary of State for Employment on the sale of skill centres, because the Government have failed to reveal information about why they did not tell bidders for the centres that £11 million would be given to three civil servants and would not be available to the others? The Government did not tell other bidders that 27 skill centres were to be sold to Astra Training Services. There has been a conspiracy of secrecy on the matter. It is taxpayers' money and we should know the details, and it is vital that there is a requirement that civil servants should not be given inside advantage to purchase publicly owned assets. We should have a statement next week about this further rip-off of taxpayers.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity, in a more intelligent setting, to ask those questions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment on Tuesday next week.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Labour party is now committed to repealing all the trade union reforms that we have introduced during the past 10 years? Since that hostility bears down on individual rights and can only create confusion and mayhem in the workplace, may we have an urgent debate on the matter after the Whitsun recess?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend correctly draws attention to yet another aspect of the Opposition's policy that could do grave damage to the economy.

Dr. John Reid: Does the Leader of the House recall that last week I asked him whether the Government would make a statement on steel policy? Is he aware that, had such a statement been made, we might have been able to change British Steel's disastrous decision to close the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig? The absence of a Department of Trade and Industry statement is tragic both for the Government and for Ravenscraig, since there are deep divisions between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Scotland. It was extremely unfortunate that we did not have the opportunity, during Prime Minister's questions today, to hear that the Government support the fight for Ravenscraig. Unfortunately, the random selection of supplementary questions did not allow any of the Scottish Members of Parliament to be called, and——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a reflection upon the Chair. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw that remark. He was called twice yesterday.

Dr. Reid: I said that the random selection of questions unfortunately did not allow one Scottish Labour Member of Parliament to be called, and I stand by that. Will the Leader of the House allow us to question the Department of Trade and Industry by bringing the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the Dispatch Box to answer directly for the consequences of his privatisation programme?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The position remains exactly as I have already stated it: this is a matter for the commercial judgment of the company. It was the subject of a statement and questions in the House yesterday afternoon; it will be the subject of a further debate in the House next Monday.

Mr. Michael Jack: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time in the near future for a debate on the regulations governing the Data Protection Act 1984? A document has been sent to me by constituents—it is a Labour party document from the private office of the Leader of the Opposition—requesting Conservatives to give money. It has not attracted much support, but the document purports to say the following, in very small print: "Labour would never make"——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must paraphrase, please, not read.

Mr. Jack: The document goes on to say that people's names and addresses will be given to carefully screened companies as a result of this application. This is a matter for investigation.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sure that the House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. I hope that it is studied as it ought to be by those responsible for the circulation of the document.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Leader of the House confirm the statement made by the Prime Minister's press officer, Mr. Bernard Ingham, that the Secretary of State for Scotland is receiving no support in Cabinet and that he stands alone? Will he arrange for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement about why he stands alone and why he is not getting support for the steel workers at Ravenscraig?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Secretary of State for Scotland stands as a member of the Government with the full support of the Government. Government policy is the same for all Ministers. Obviously there is concern about the consequences of any commercial decision, but the fact remains that the decisions affecting Ravenscraig are commercial decisions. They were the subject of discussions in the House yesterday, and they will be the subject of further discussion on Monday.

Mr. Stephen Day: Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for a debate next week on the appalling decision of the Civil Aviation Authority not to recommend the mandatory introduction of smoke hoods into civilian aircraft? Is he aware of the seriousness of the matter? It is rumoured that many people lay the blame at the door of the CAA for the consequent cancellation by British Airways of an order for smoke hoods and for the possible withdrawal of one leading manufacturer? Given that safety matters are involved, particularly in the light of what happened at Manchester airport a few years ago, will he allow the House to debate the competence of the CAA?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot comment on the detail of what my hon. Friend has said, but I promise to bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Salmond.

Mr. John Maxton: He has not been here.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I decide who is called. The hon. Gentleman represents the Scottish National party.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The whole House heard the Leader of the House say earlier that the Government would not seek to influence British Steel over Ravenscraig. The whole House heard the Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday tell the House that he would seek to persuade British Steel to change its position. Will the Leader of the House now try to reconcile those apparently irreconcilable statements or tell us who has cut adrift from the Cabinet; is it himself or the Secretary of State for Scotland?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no rift of any kind whatsoever. It is a matter for commercial judgment, but, as I said earlier, it is open to hon. Members on both sides of the House to advance any arguments that they wish to bring to the attention of the company. That matter can be debated on Monday.

Mr. Edward Leigh: May I return to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey)? Although I suppose that one should take opinion polls commissioned by the media with a pinch of salt, hardly a weekend passes when I do not vote in The Sunday Times poll for my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) as leader of the Conservative party. However, there is an onus on the media when they commission such polls which claim to speak for the public to publish all the polls or none of them; otherwise, they are seriously misleading the public.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to that matter and to express his view on it.
It remains the responsibility of those in the media who handle these matters, but clearly they will wish to take note of what has been said by my hon. Friend, among others, in the House.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Will the Leader of the House seriously reconsider what he has said this afternoon? First, he has totally and utterly repudiated the statement that we heard yesterday from the Secretary of State for Scotland. Secondly, he is jumping ahead of the debate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been presupposing the decision of the debate before the House of Commons debates the matter. He is not entitled to presuppose whether we shall decide to interfere with the decision taken by British Steel, or at any rate to bring pressure to bear on the company. Each time he says that it is purely a matter of commercial decision by the firm, he is jumping ahead of the decision of the House. Will he withdraw that?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that the spokesman for No. 10 Downing street speaks openly?

Even a civil servant has been put in the position of denying the statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and it is time that that finished.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been making the same point throughout the discussion——

Mr. Buchan: But the right hon. and learned Gentleman should not do that.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The decision is a matter for the commercial judgment of the company. It remains that, but, as I have also made clear, it is perfectly open to hon. Members——

Mr. Buchan: It is open to this House.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Hon. Members, individually and collectively, are entitled to make representations and express views on matters that should be taken into account by the company. However, the decision is a matter for the company on commercial grounds.

Mr. Chris Butler: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time next week for a debate on bureaucratic insensitivity in local government? Tragically, a disabled constituent of mine died on 2 April, and the Labour council in Warrington sent her son a poll tax bill of 21p. Is that not scandalous?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As the Prime Minister made clear in answer to a similar question on a similar point some weeks ago, there is no obligation on a local authority to deliver a bill for a sum of that kind. It is a matter about which local authorities have discretion, and one hopes that that discretion will be exercised sensibly.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are six more minutes before we move to the next statement. The length of questions will determine how many hon. Members I can call.

Mr. George Robertson: Surely there is now an overwhelming case for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make an urgent statement. After all, the Leader of the House, as deputy Prime Minister, has this afternoon repudiated what the Secretary of State said in the House yesterday, and said throughout Scotland and to the media last night. In addition, we have the news that this morning Mr. Bernard Ingham said that the Secretary of State for Scotland was on his own on this issue. Is it not sad and humiliating that, whereas last Friday, in Aberdeen, the Prime Minister stood four square beside her Secretary of State for Scotland, on Wednesday of the following week she has allowed him to stand alone and discarded as he is repudiated by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, by the British Steel Corporation and now, it would appear, by No. 10 Downing street?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman returns to the same set of fantasies—[Interruption.] The Government take a single view on this matter. The Secretary of State for Scotland addressed the House on it yesterday and the House will be looking at it again on Monday.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May we have a debate on the catering arrangements for hon. Members and their families? Is it not deeply shocking


when a Cabinet Minister cynically force-feeds his own children on television with beefburgers that he cannot even guarantee are contaminant-free?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman has a more grotesque capacity than almost any other hon. Member in the House for following a single track to destruction. I have nothing to add to what I have said on this subject on many previous occasions.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: The Leader of the House will be aware that, as the Environmental Protection Bill makes its way through the House, the Nature Conservancy Council part of the measure is proving to be of great concern. Will he cancel the press conference that has been arranged for tomorrow to give the Government's response to the Carver report and instead deal with it in the proper way, and that is by arranging for a statement to be made in the House next week?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend is handling the matter exactly as it should be handled.

Mr. David Winnick: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, since yesterday, the Cabinet has upheld the point of view of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) against that of the Secretary of State for Scotland? I draw attention to column 894 of yesterday's Official Report. If, as seems clear, the Secretary of State for Scotland in making his statement yesterday was not speaking for the Government—that is precisely what Mr. Ingham has been telling the media—it is necessary for the House of Commons to understand that point officially, since the Secretary of State for Scotland's statement yesterday did not reflect the view of the Cabinet. In those circumstances, we are entitled to know who will speak for the Government on Monday.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is a limit to the number of times one can say the same thing. The Secretary of State for Scotland explained the position to the House yesterday. The House will have an opportunity of addressing itself to the matter on Monday.

Dr. Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises directly out of what is happening and what the Leader of the House continues to say. Yesterday the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
we shall seek to persuade British Steel to reconsider its proposal in the interests both of the company and of its work force"—[Official Report, 16 May 1990; Vol. 172, column 887.]
In using the word "we", the Secretary of State was speaking on behalf of the Government—on behalf of the Cabinet as a whole. Now we have the Leader of the House disavowing that statement. We have also had official briefing from No. 10 Downing street, on behalf of the Government, disavowing it, and it has been disavowed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. We are entitled to know just what is the policy of the Government on this important matter concerning Scotland.

Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with me; it is wholly a matter for the Government.

Mr. Denis Howell: Will the Leader of the House kindly arrange for the Home Secretary to make an urgent statement on his failure to establish the Football Licensing Authority which, although it is now months after the Bill was passed, has no chairman or chief executive? There is tremendous conflict because Lord Justice Taylor's report must be implemented during the close season, at a cost of many millions of pounds, by football clubs that do not know where they stand because that authority has not yet been established.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I will bring the point to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Max Madden: May I use my question to appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to allow my right hon. Friend and——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That would not be in order. This is business questions to the Leader of the House.

Mr. Madden: May I, therefore, ask the Leader of the House if he will express a willingness to remain in the House to answer the questions that my right hon. and hon. Friends want to ask on a most important issue? Some of us resent strongly the limits that have been put on the opportunities for Back-Bench Members to raise at this time and at other times issues of urgent importance to their constituencies.
The Housing Corporation is in deep financial crisis. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman arrange for the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement next week about what the Government are doing to enable new homes for rent to be built, including in my constituency?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: All that I can and will do is to draw the point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Speaker: I must tell the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) that I have a long memory. I remember him rising last week and calling me to account for not calling Front-Bench Members while the television cameras were on. He is now saying something rather different.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order in a minute.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I repeat that I will take points of order after the statement.

Northern Ireland (Stevens Report)

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the report of an inquiry conducted in Northern Ireland by Mr. John Stevens, deputy chief constable of Cambridgeshire. Mr. Stevens was appointed on 14 September 1989 by the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to conduct an inquiry into allegations of collusion between members of the security forces in Northern Ireland and loyalist paramilitaries, and to make recommendations. He presented his report to the Chief Constable on 5 April 1990 and, subsequently, he has prepared a summary of his findings and recommendations. That summary, together with a copy of the complete report, was made available to me earlier this week. The Chief Constable made the summary report publicly available earlier today. Copies have been placed in the Library of this House and that of another place.
Mr. Stevens conducted a most thorough and wide-ranging inquiry in which, as he himself stresses, he has at all times received full co-operation at every level from both the RUC and the Army. In connection with his inquiry, 94 persons have been arrested, of whom 59 have either been charged with, or reported for, a variety of criminal offences. The majority of these cases are covered by the sub judice rule and it would be improper for me to comment further about them.
The report from Mr. Stevens was addressed to the Chief Constable. Many of its conclusions and recommendations are primarily for him to consider. Others are for the Army authorities in Northern Ireland or for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Mr. Stevens found that the passing of information to paramilitaries did take place, but that it was restricted to a small number of individuals and was neither widespread nor institutionalised. Moreover, he has recognised that steps taken by the police and the Army both before and since September 1989 have already significantly reduced the risk of repetition. No document so far traced to the possession of loyalist paramilitaries bore a recent date. Mr. Stevens recognises that there must be some tension between the need to disseminate information for operational purposes and the need effectively to safeguard that information.
Mr. Stevens finds, nevertheless, that there were deficiencies in procedures for identifying and accounting for documents containing sensitive information. Far too much material was circulating at any one time and the easy availability of photocopiers further extended the risk of unlawful dissemination. Accordingly, the report contains a number of detailed recommendations aimed at further improving the arrangements for the dissemination and control of all sensitive information; already some of these have been and others are being implemented. Mr. Stevens notes that the absence of adequate control procedures at the material time severely hampered the efforts of his inquiry to discover the origins of documents and to trace persons who might have been criminally responsible for passing them on and that, for related reasons, it cannot be assumed that a document with a particular provenance was leaked directly from the organisation that produced it.
As Mr. Stevens's own summary makes clear, any evidence or allegation of criminal conduct was rigorously

followed up. No charges have been laid against any member of the RUC. Mr. Stevens concluded that there had been misbehaviour by a few individual members of the Ulster Defence Regiment. That is a matter of great regret to me, as I know that it is to the great majority of those honourable and courageous men and women who are the backbone of a very fine regiment; and I therefore welcome Mr. Stevens's equally firm conclusion that it would be wholly wrong to believe that a significant proportion of members of the UDR were involved wth paramilitaries. The House will know that steps have already been taken to tighten up procedures for screening potential members of the regiment. Mr. Stevens has made recommendations for further improvements in the arrangements in that area.
I see nothing in the findings of the Stevens inquiry to lessen my convictiion that the UDR plays a vital and valued part in the Army's support for the police-led anti-terrorist effort. I am conviced that the regiment is fundamentally sound; I am fully aware of the great efforts that continue to be made by the regiment steadily to improve its effectiveness and professionalism, and I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of its members impartially serve the whole community in Northern Ireland. I remind the House that, in that service, more than 180 serving and more than 40 former members of the regiment have been killed in Northern Ireland in the past 20 years; only two days ago, 11 members of the UDR were decorated or were mentioned in dispatches.
Mr. Stevens also makes proposals relating to the technical and scientific support services available to the RUC's anti-terrorist work, identifying in particular scene-of-crime examinations, fingerprint analysis and the scientific examination of possible exhibits. The need for improvements in many of those areas had already been recognised by the Chief Constable, and Mr. Stevens's recommendations in those areas will now be for the Chief Constable to take forward. I stand ready to respond as sympathetically as I can to any specific recommendations that the Chief Constable may wish to put to me.
Painful though its findings in some respects may be, the Stevens report is a most valuable document. It has highlighted shortcomings and deficiencies in several important areas. Action by the police and the Army to remedy many of the deficiencies to which Mr. Stevens has drawn attention has already been taken, or is now in hand; and immediate consideration will now be given to his detailed recommendations for further improvements.
I am sure that the whole House shares my gratitude to the Chief Constable of the RUC for initiating this inquiry, and to Mr. Stevens for the exemplary care and vigour with which he has carried it out. It will contribute to increasing the skill and dedication with which the security forces carry out their vital task of combating and defeating terrorism in Northern Ireland, wherever it is to be found. I hope that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the skilled, courageous and impartial way in which they carry it out.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for his courtesy in supplying me with a copy of the summary of the report. On behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, I should also like to thank Mr. Stevens and his team of officers for their efforts in a long, gruelling and—on occasions—no doubt frustrating series of investigations.
I read Mr. Stevens's report with mixed feelings. It is regrettable that he was forced to admit that, in some cases, although he had found evidence of wrongdoing, it was impossible to trace the culprit. His admission that
in the present climate, leakages of information from the Security Forces may never be completely eliminated
will dismay the supporters of the rule of law in Northern Ireland and throughout these islands. It will not enhance the reputation of the security forces; nor will it facilitate co-operation with the Irish security forces.
We should not forget that it is believed that the leakages have a direct connection with the deaths of several individuals. It is important for confidence in the security forces that they should not harbour people whose loyalties may at best be divided. On the other hand, Mr. Stevens has provided a great service in his recommendations for the future. Whatever the deficiencies of the report as a criminal investigation, it is certainly an impressive management consultancy report.
Judging by Mr. Stevens's recommendations, it is obvious that the inquiry team has discoverd appalling laxity in the handling of information by the security forces and in the recruitment procedures of the UDR, which has resulted in some unfortunate publicity attaching to certain members of the regiment.
Can the Secretary of State assure us that he, the Minister of State, the police authority and the Chief Constable will act immediately on Mr. Stevens's recommendations, to ensure that, in Mr. Stevens's words:
Any future collusion between the security forces and paramilitary terrorist groups will be eradicated"?
In particular, will he assure us that the document production and distribution procedures will now be made traceable? Will he assure us that the present level of computer security, which apparently would be a disgrace in an ordinary commercial organisation, will now be replaced by proper arrangements?
Will the right hon. Gentleman, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Defence, ensure that proper personnel procedures are put in place so that the difficulties that afflict recruitment to the UDR can be removed once and for all? We welcome the recommendation that the Ministry of Defence should now justify, at senior level, the rejection of RUC advice on recruiting, but it will be regretted that the final decision was not left in the hands of the RUC, because the recommendation that the MOD should have the last say does not follow the logic of Mr. Stevens's report.
The Chief Constable has said in statements today that perhaps not all the published recommendations will be implemented. Will the Secretary of State urge him to say which recommendations will not be implemented and why?
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the range of charges that have been preferred as a result of the inquiry—although I understand the problems associated with the sub judice rule?
I hope that the Secretary of State realises that the concerns expressed by Mr. Stevens are concerns which we all share. We hope that he will treat the matter with the urgency that is deserves. He will have the full support of the Opposition in implementing the thrust of Mr. Stevens's

recommendations. In the battle against terrorism —whether loyalist or nationalist—there is no room for complacency.

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks about the manner in which the matter was handled and for the congratulations that he offered to Mr. Stevens. I heard his expression of regret that, despite the intense thoroughness of the inquiry, Mr. Stevens was not able to pursue a number of matters fully.
As I hope was evident from the spirit of my statement, we shall be responding as promptly as may be to the recommendations. I temper my words in that way only because there are 83 recommendations, and their implementation will involve different time scales.
We agree with the broad thrust of the recommendatons. Inevitably, some of the recommendations are for the attention of people other than myself, but I shall be collaborating with them in their response. As regards the matters that are for me, I shall respond as sympathetically as I can to any propositions that the Chief Constable puts to me.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the traceability of documents and access to the computer. He will find from the summary that, in the case of the former, improvement has already been effected by all the interested parties, and the Chief Constable responded at the press conference that he gave this morning to the recommendations relating to the computer. The hon. Gentleman will know that a considerable amount has been done in the past six months on the vetting of recruits to the UDR. He expressed his regret that the RUC should not have the last say. I think that this is an instance in which it is simplest for us simply to disagree.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the statement that not all the recommendations will necessarily be followed up. It is probably better to let that matter take its course, given that some of the recommendations are highly detailed. Those of us to whom the recommendations are directly or indirectly made will indicate the nature of our response to them.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the range of charges. As he said, those matters are sub judice and it would probably be inappropriate for me to comment.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked the Government to respond urgently and I can assure him that the need for urgency will be observed.

Mr. James Molyneaux: What does Mr. Stevens mean by recommendation 65:
Introduce interview of applicants' referees"?
Did no one tell him that that procedure was introduced in 1971?
Does the Secretary of State recall my request to him to consider publishing a further paper when the various charges have been processed to give detailed breakdown of the number of people arrested for questioning, the number released after questioning, the number whose cases were put to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the number of cases that were rejected by the DPP?
Does the Secretary of State agree that, although the Stevens summary has enlightened us all greatly on the technicalities of computers and photocopiers, it does nothing whatever to clear the reputation of the 28 Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers who were arrested so dramatically for publicity purposes one Sunday morning, only seven of whom have subsequently been charged, and


convicted of non-terrorist related offences? To put it in plain language, I understand that they were convicted of having a few spare rounds in their possession. What soldier does not commit that offence?
Will an adequate apology by given to those men, considering that many of them had to move house after being treated as if they were terrorists? Will adequate compensation be given to them and will apologies be offered to the regiment to which they belong?

Mr. Brooke: The right hon. Gentleman's first question related to recommendation 65 in Mr. Stevens's summary. No doubt he will forgive me if I say that his question was addressed more to Mr. Stevens than to me, although there will be analysis and a response to that recommendation.
The right hon. Gentleman's second and third questions related primarily to individual members of the UDR who were arrested in the course of the inquiry. I rest on my earlier remarks about the sub judice rule, although I realise that some of the cases have already been handled. The right hon. Gentleman referred to those who have had to move house. There are, of course, full administrative procedures for handling that matter, which is one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Rev. William McCrea: There are those who will be disappointed by the report and see deficiencies in it because it reveals that the political hype directed against the security forces in Northern Ireland was totally unwarranted. Does the Secretary of State agree that any fair-minded person will welcome the fact that Mr. Stevens has reported that
the passing of information to paramilitaries by Security Force members has been restricted to a small number of individuals. It is neither widespread nor institutionalised"?
Bearing in mind the fact that there are 28,000 members of the security forces and given that the Stevens report states that such activities are restricted to a small number of individuals" does the Secretary of State agree that it is time for every Member in the House to give his or her wholehearted support to the security forces in their fight against the real enemy of democracy—the terrorist throughout the United Kingdom? This part of the United Kingdom has suffered ghastly incidents in the past few days.
Recommendation 59 suggests:
Consider location of home address of applicants".
Can the Secretary of State give a clear undertaking that, in judging the calibre of an applicant to the security forces, the guiding principle will be not his address but his person?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the fact—as I sought to do in my statement—that Mr. Stevens has drawn attention to only a small number of individuals, and that he does not regard any such activity as general or institutionalised. I am sure that the whole House will join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming that.
I am also delighted to sustain the hon. Gentleman in what he says about the whole House giving support to the security forces in the dangerous and highly responsible tasks that they carry out on behalf of the whole community. I know that he would not wish that support to be blind, that he would wish the rule of law to continue to be upheld and that he will recognise that in inviting Mr. Stevens to conduct that inquiry, the Chief Constable has been loyal to that thesis.
Recommendation 59 is a matter of detail which will be looked at. I shall certainly ensure that the attention of those who will be responding to that recommendation will be drawn to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: In asking a question about the UDR, I agree with the Secretary of State that none of us should forget that 220 members of the UDR are dead as a result of their activities. We on this side of the water quite properly get upset when people on this side are killed. Two hundred and twenty is a large number of people to have been killed, and I take that into account when asking this question.
Is not it the case that over the years the UDR has had a high turnover of people? Given the importance of police primacy and what I detect, on a quick reading of the report, to be a mix-up between the roles of the UDR and the RUC, would not it be better to increase the numbers in the RUC and the RUC Reserve and to keep the UDR as a smaller force, with a lower turnover, to do a limited job—an Army job?

Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the numbers. Although I fear that that number now exceeds 220, he is right that it is an appalling number.
Although I believe that the turnover is probably lower than the right hon. Gentleman imagines, I acknowledge that some people do not stay all that long with the regiment. However, others have served in the regiment consistently since its formation and I pay tribute to them for their bravery.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the balance of the security forces. The armed forces have had to be increased during the past five years when, as a result of Libyan armaments, there has been a rise in the level of violence, but it is the number of those serving in the regular Army that has been increased, not the number of those in the UDR. However, there has been a shift in the UDR in that period.

Mr. Ian Gow: Is it a source of satisfaction to my right hon. Friend that, after the serious allegations that have been made against the Ulster Defence Regiment and his own RUC, the Chief Constable appointed Mr. Stevens to carry out an inquiry; that that inquiry received the utmost co-operation throughout from the Ulster Defence Regiment and the RUC; that that inquiry was one of the most thorough that has ever taken place; and that the report has been published almost in full and has been the subject of a statement in the House?
Is not it a tribute to the way in which we are trying to cleanse the island of Ireland of terrorism that those procedures have taken place? Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm, despite the criticism in the report, his total confidence in both the RUC and the Ulster Defence Regiment?

Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for the tone and terms in which his question was framed. The inquiry that Mr. Stevens carried out was the most intensive and extensive inquiry of its kind ever to be undertaken in the United Kingdom. We should all derive satisfaction not only from its thoroughness, but from its findings. I am delighted, as my hon. Friend has so invited me, to express my total confidence in both the RUC and the UDR

Mr. Eddie McGrady: The Secretary of State will be aware that the inquiry has been described in some quarters as "political hype". I remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the inquiry began as a direct consequence of the murders of my constituents. In July 1989 Loughlin Maginn was murdered and three men were charged with his murder, two of whom unfortunately—I emphasise the word "unfortunately"—were full-time serving members of the Ulster Defence Regiment——

Mr. Molyneaux: From Great Britain.

Mr. McGrady: Well, they may have been from Great Britain, but that is not what I am talking about.
Immediately after that—five days later—the loyalist paramilitaries gave an exhibition of montages of considerable detail to the press. Some months later, loyalist murder gangs were intercepted by the security forces on entering my constituency of South Down, with the specific purpose of murdering constituents of mine who had been named in those leaked documents.
I do not consider this to be a matter of "political hype" or something to be taken lightly. This issue is fundamental to the recognition of and respect for law and order in Northern Ireland in all its contexts. Caesar's wife must be absolutely pure in all circumstances.
I cannot comment in detail on the report, so I simply shall refer to the Secretary of State's statement. I am concerned that some 60 people have been found guilty or will be charged with colluding in the perpetration of a crime. I remind the House that the crime that we are talking about is murder. We are talking about collusion in the murders of innocent people. That is why this matter is so important and why I hope that the Secretary of State will act with the greatest possible urgency in executing the revisions that have been found necessary and exposed in the report.
This is not the first time that various screens and processes have been reorganised. That has happened at least five or six times in the past 20 years. What is going wrong in allowing those evil people to slip through the net —[Interruption.] Another point that I should like the Secretary of State to address —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that he should address questions to the Secretary of State, not comments?

Mr. McGrady: Why has it taken such a long time for adequate controls to be put in place?
Last but not least, the Secretary of State said that the Stevens inquiry referred to Army investigations and RUC investigations. Did the Stevens inquiry investigate the operation of the secret units within Northern Ireland, which are setting paramilitary against paramilitary, and community against community, and working outside the rule of law or the control of the RUC and the British Army?

Mr. Brooke: I join the hon. Gentleman in his observation that the matters that gave rise to the inquiry were not ones to be taken lightly. The Chief Constable responded to a series of events in Northern Ireland by inviting Mr. Stevens to carry out an inquiry that has lasted for a full eight months. I salute the Chief Constable for his original decision and Mr. Stevens for his conduct of that inquiry.
The hon. Gentleman should allow for the fact that there is clear evidence that the action of the paramilitaries in producing the information that gave rise to the inquiry in the first instance was clearly intended to discredit the security forces, which are the paramilitaries' enemies, in so far as they act on behalf of the whole community.
It would be a mistake for us to discuss the 59 charges in detail across the Floor of the House, not only because of the sub judice issue, but because the hon. Gentleman's question slightly generalised the charges.
I give the hon. Gentleman the same pledge about urgency that I gave the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who spoke for the Opposition.
The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) also asked me about adequate controls. I should say—some of this is apparent in the summary—that long before the Stevens inquiry was set up, the Army and the RUC were already taking measures in that area. Mr. Stevens also refers to the many members of the RUC who were interviewed about that.
The hon. Gentleman's final question takes us into a level of operational detail, which is more a question for Mr. Stevens than for me.

Mr. James Kilfedder: At this time I think of my constituents and all the other innocent people throughout the Province who have been slaughtered by the Irish Republican Army. I thank God for the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. In my view, the report, which I have hastily read, confirms that a large and expensive sledgehammer has been used to crack a miserable nut. The Secretary of State was right when he said that what generated the inquiry was the paramilitary Ulster Defence Association sending some photographs to the press.
What was the cost of the inquiry, which seemed to turn into a general inquisition and fishing expedition to satisfy republican demands, as part of a campaign to denigrate and undermine the UDR and RUC? Many people in Northern Ireland would agree that if all the effort and money expended on the report and the inquiry had been directed against the IRA, more terrorists would have been apprehended and more innocent lives saved.
I remind the Secretary of State of the protest that I made in the House in October of last year when a young constituent of mine was pulled out of his bed in the early hours of the morning and dragged off to a police station. He was a serving member of the UDR. Everyone in the neighbourhood was aware of his arrest because of the noise from the police vehicles. A few hours later, after hype and publicity in the press, he was released and allowed to rejoin his young wife and child. He was an innocent man. It was a disgraceful way in which to treat him or any other member of the UDR.

Mr. Brooke: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish to extend his tribute to the UDR to other parts of the security forces.

Mr. Kilfedder: indicated assent

Mr. Brooke: He said that we had taken a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I state on behalf of the Government that the rule of law is beyond price and confidence that the rule of law is being maintained is a matter of great importance to everyone in the House. I do not have an absolutely


up-to-date figure for the cost of the inquiry, but I understand that up to a recent date it had cost £500,000. Many hon. Members will agree that such expenditure and thoroughness was justified in view of the objective that we sought. Mr. Stevens himself said:
Written statements have been taken from over 1,900 witnesses and suspects; 2,000 investigative enquiries undertaken and almost 2,000 man hours expended on interviews with detained persons. Over 2,600 documents of all types, have been recovered
On the hon. Gentleman's last point, it would not be right for me to comment on an individual case. However, I salute his conscientiousness as a constituency Member of Parliament in bringing it to my attention.

Mr. Alex Carlile: As the Secretary of State made clear in his statement, the implementation of Mr. Stevens's excellent report will require action by more than one Department and co-operation between Departments. How will he ensure that there is an overall strategy to give us confidence that all the recommendations of the Stevens report will be brought into effect? Will he also take steps to ensure a consistency of standards across the Irish border so that the police in the Republic apply similar standards on the issues described by Mr. Stevens?
Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the Stevens inquiry was not assisted by the Irish News which made many allegations but refused to back them up by producing evidence?

Mr. Brooke: I give the hon. and learned Gentleman the assurance that he requested about action. As I have already said, I cannot prejudge the response to particular recommendations. They are addressed to several different Departments of State, including the Ministry of Defence. The 8.3 recommendations have been made as a package and we shall seek to concert our general response on an interdepartmental basis.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked about cross-border matters. I have a suspicion that the Government of the Republic of Ireland will be interested in discussing the report with me on the next occasion that I meet them. I shall certainly bear in mind what the hon. and learned Gentleman said when I do that. He was right about the conclusions of the Stevens inquiry about the inability of the Irish News to sustain the allegations that it initially made.

Mr. Michael Mates: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the instances of individual wrongdoing by members of the security forces must be firmly dealt with and that Mr. Stevens is to be congratulated on the way in which he has done it? Is it not astonishing that so few instances have been found, given the strain and stress under which the security forces operate? Does he agree that as long as the security forces have to risk life and limb on the streets of Ulster and in the countryside there, they must have access to photographs of people wanted in connection with offences? Therefore, the simplest way to prevent any further instances will be for the terrorists to lay down their arms, stop killing and maiming innocent men, women and children and seek political solutions to the problems that they seek to solve. Is it not extraordinary that in his criticism of my right hon. Friend's remarks, the Opposition spokesman on Northern

Ireland could not bring himself to say one word in praise of our security forces and their sterling work or one word of condemnation of terrorism?

Mr. Brooke: I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he worded his remarks about the nature of the report and its findings, given his position on the Select Committee for Defence. I have already said that we welcome the fact that only a small number of instances of wrongdoing were highlighted by Mr. Stevens. We are all aware of the stress under which the security forces operate in Northern Ireland. As my hon. Friend rightly says, they are daily at risk of death at the hands of terrorists. The main lesson of the report was that the Chief Constable was determined to make sure that the rule of law is maintained within the Province.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: In view of the alarmist stories that appeared in the republican press. is not paragraph 41 of the report, which says that the practice was confined to a small number of individuals and was neither widespread nor institutionalised, worthy of the greater possible publicity? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that Mr. Charles Haughey, the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, receives a copy of the report immediately?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to paragraph 41, to which other hon. Members also drew attention. I have made it possible to make a copy of the report available to the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Is it not remarkable that so many citizens of Northern Ireland are prepared to serve with the UDR after doing a day's work, bearing in mind the onerous nature of the duties and the high casualty rate? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key to the matter is improved and thorough vetting of those who join the regiment? Will the Government stick to their guns and make sure that the regiment decides, after taking the best possible advice, who is good enough to serve in it?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his tribute to the UDR. It is perhaps worth drawing the attention of the House to the fact that last year 11 million man hours were spent out of bed by members of the regiment in defence of the community in Northern Ireland and that 1,000 vehicle checkpoints are mounted every night, with all the danger that that involves for those who mount them. I acknowledge the importance of vetting. I confirm that the Government will stand by their position on the process of recruitment into the regiment. On top of that, emphasis will be placed on training and further professionalisation, which the regiment has constantly in hand.

Mr. McNamara: Is the Secretary of State aware that it was not a member of the Opposition who made a statement in the House which resulted in an alleged terrorist not being extradited from Ireland because it was felt that he would not have a fair trial? Is he further aware that I have been delighted to accept an invitation to join the UDR on training procedures in the north of England next week?

Mr. Brooke: I am not absolutely certain that I recognise the relevance of the first part of the hon. Gentleman's


question to today's statement. I warmly welcome his decision to participate in the training procedures of the UDR. If he could go further and urge more Catholics to join the regiment, he would be doing a considerable service to Northern Ireland.

Whitsun Adjournment Debates

Mr. Speaker: I remind hon. Members that on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Thursday 24 May up to 10 Members may raise subjects of their choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the result made known as soon as possible

Ravenscraig

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I call Maria Fyfe first.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be glad of your advice. On Monday the House will debate Ravenscraig. Are we to understand that the Government's policy is as described by the Leader of the House or as described by the Secretary of State for Scotland? How should we expect Tory Members to be whipped and to vote on Monday? Will they tell us that Ravenscraig's future must be determined on commercial criteria or will they be whipped to defend Ravenscraig?

Several Hon. Members: Further to that point of order——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that it will not be further to that point of order, because I could not possibly answer such a question, but I will listen.

Mr. John McAllion: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I failed to catch your eye during Prime Minister's Question Time, or to get a clear answer from the Leader of the House during business questions. Scottish Members have no early opportunity to clarify the position of the Secretary of State for Scotland inside the Government. Today in press briefings No. 10 has made it clear that the Secretary of State is isolated from and disowned by the rest of the Cabinet and that he does not speak for Government policy. At this critical juncture in our history Scotland cannot afford to have its representatives in the Cabinet publicly humiliated in this way. Can you advise me how within the rules of the House we can ensure that the Secretary of State for Scotland comes to the Dispatch Box before the weekend to answer Scottish Members' questions?

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me deal with the matter. Yesterday I granted a private notice question and every hon. Member who was present was called. I cannot say whether the Secretary of State will answer the debate on Monday. The Opposition are using their time for a debate and that is the occasion when hon. Members should put their questions.

Several Hon. Members: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. In that case, they cannot possibly be points of order for me. The opportunity arises on Monday.

Mr. John Maxton: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have a political crisis in Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland, who is the representative of the Government in Scotland, has been repudiated by his Cabinet colleagues. I have the press statement that the Secretary of State issued yesterday and the early-day motion signed by the hon. Member for


Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and his five Back-Bench colleagues, which demands that British Steel changes its mind and invests in Ravenscraig.
I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that you may not have the power to demand that the Secretary of State comes to make a statement about his position, but clearly we cannot allow the crisis to run over the weekend without the Secretary of State making his position clear. Even if you do not have the power to demand that, you have the ability and persuasive powers to phone the Secretary of State when you leave the Chair and ask him to come to the House and clarify his position because it has become wholly untenable.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I had better take all these points of order together. I call Mrs. Ewing.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In your earlier response to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) you referred to yesterday's private notice question and said that hon. Members who stood were called to speak. None of us will deny that. However, what has happened since is of great significance. The Leader of the House and deputy Prime Minister clearly said that the Government would not seek to influence the decision, which is in complete contrast to what the Secretary of State for Scotland said yesterday. It is absolutely intolerable for Scottish Members to return to their constituencies with two completely different messages from the Government. Surely the Secretary of State must clarify that for us tonight or early tomorrow morning.

Mr. John Home Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will appreciate that this afternoon's events raise serious questions about the identity of the Secretary of State for Scotland. As he has been wholly repudiated by his right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, he is not just semi-detached, but completely adrift. Have you received any notification that the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) has been replaced by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) as Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot answer any of those questions. However, I am pleased to tell Scottish Members that I am looking forward with great pleasure to visiting Scotland this weekend for the general assembly of the Church of

Scotland. I hope that I may have the opportunity to discuss these matters informally with the hon. Members concerned.

Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that charges, real or imaginary, have been levelled against me. May I take this opportunity to make it clear that I have no problem in standing behind the Government's decision. None whatever. I stand by my question yesterday and there is nothing contradictory about it.
I support what the Labour Opposition are attempting to do and I see nothing contradictory about that. My question made it clear where I stand on this issue.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We can leave the matter until Monday. It sounds as though we shall have an interesting debate.

SCOTTISH ESTIMATES

Ordered,
That the Estimates set out hereunder be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee:—

Class XV, Vote 1, Agricultural Support, Scotland
Class XV, Vote 2, Agricultural Services and Fisheries, Scotland
Class XV, Vote 3, Regional and General Industrial Support, Scotland
Class XV, Vote 4, Training Programmes, Scotland
Class XV, Vote 5, Regional Assistance, Scotland
Class XV, Vote 6, Roads, Transport and Environmental Services, Scotland
Class XV, Vote 7, Local Transport, Housing, Water, Sewerage and Environmental Services, Scotland
Class XV, Vote 8, Housing, Scotland
Class XV, Vote 9, New Towns and the Urban Programme, Scotland
Class XV, Vote 10, Privatisation of the Electricity Supply Industry, Scotland
Class XV, Vote 11, Administration of Justice, Scotland
Class XV, Vote 12, Police Grant, Legal Aid, Criminal Injuries Compensation and Welfare Food, Scotland
Class XV, Vote 13, Legal Proceedings, Scotland
Class XV, Vote 14, Law, Order and Miscellaneous Health Services, Scotland
Class XV, Vote 15, Education, Arts, Libraries and Social Work, Scotland
Class XV, Vote 16, Student Awards, Scotland
Class XV, Vote 17, Health, Family Practitioner Services (Part), Scotland
Class XV, Vote 21, Scottish Office Administration
Class XV, Vote 26, Privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group
Class XV, Vote 27, Hospitals and Community Health Services, Family Practitioner Services (Part) and Other Health Services, Scotland—[Mr. Wood.]

Orders of the Day — Employment Bill

As amended, (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 10

CALLING OF INDUSTRIAL ACTION WITH SUPPORT OF BALLOT

To move the following Clause:—
'.—(1) In section 11 of the Trade Union Act 1984 (requirements for ballots on industrial action), after subsection (4) insert—
(4A) The voting paper must specify who, in the event of a vote in favour of industrial action, is authorised for the purposes of section (Calling of industrial action with support of ballot) of the Employment Act 1990 to call upon members to take part or continue to take part in the industrial action. The person or description of persons so specified need not be authorised under the rules of the union but must be within section 15(3) of the Employment Act 1982.".
(2) Industrial action shall not be regarded for the purposes of section 10 of the Trade Union Act 1984 or section 1 of the Employment Act 1988 as having the support of a ballot unless it is called by a specified person and the following conditions are satisfied.
(3) The conditions are that—

(a) there must have been no call by the trade union to take part or continue to take part in industrial action to which the ballot relates, or any authorisation or endorsement by the union of any such industrial action, before the date of the ballot;
(b) there must be a call for industrial action by a specified person, and industrial action to which it relates must take place, before the end of the period of four weeks beginning with the date of the ballot.

(4) For the purposes of this section a call shall be taken to have been made by a trade union if it was authorised or endorsed by the union; and the provisions of subsections (3) to (7) of section 15 of the Employment Act 1982 apply for the purpose of determining whether a call, or industrial action, is to be taken to have been so authorised or endorsed.
(5) In this section—
date of the ballot" has the same meaning as in Part II of the Trade Union Act 1984;
specified person" means a person specified or of a description specified in the voting paper for the ballot in accordance with section 11(4A) of the Trade Union Act 1984; and
trade union" has the meaning given by section 28 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974.'—[Mr. Howard.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment (a), subsection (2), leave out from `person' to the end of subsection (4).
Government amendments Nos. 15 to 17.

Mr. Howard: These amendments relate to the ballots that must take place before industrial action can attract immunity from the normal legal consequences which would follow from such action.
One of the most important reforms of trade union law introduced by this Government has been the requirement for unions to ballot their members and obtain a majority

vote for action in a secret ballot if they are to have protection against legal proceedings for organising a strike.
It is thanks to that legislation that we have seen the end of the appalling practice of union leaders calling their members out on strike without giving them any opportunity to express their views, or after sham democratic procedures, such as a show of hands in a car park—with all the intimidation and irregularity which often accompanied such performances.
I must remind the House that every shadow employment spokesman in the past 11 years has led his colleagues through the Lobbies to vote against each and every piece of trade union reform legislation introduced by this Government. Even the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), now the personification of Labour's new moderate media image, was no exception. Indeed, the right hon. and learned Gentleman led the bitter opposition of the Labour party to the very legal provisions concerning ballots which the Labour party is now apparently claiming to accept, and which are directly relevant to the provisions before the House.
Our legislation has worked because it contains the necessary elements to make it work. For example, if there is no proper ballot, an affected employer or union member denied the vote can get an effective remedy from the courts. More important, it is clear that the ballot must take place before the union calls for industrial action.
New clause 10 is at the heart of this group of amendments. Therefore, it will be helpful to the House if I describe its provisions in some detail. The amendment adds a new subsection to section 11 of the 1984 Act. Section 11 sets out requirements that must be satisfied if a ballot is to give a union protection against actions in tort by an employer or customer or supplier of an employer who may be damaged by the union's inducement of members to break or interfere with the performance of contracts, or proceedings by a member of the union under section 1 of the 1988 Act.
New subsection (4A) requires the voting paper in a ballot to specify who is authorised to call on members to take part in or continue with the industrial action to which the ballot relates. The person or description of persons need not be authorised under the union's own rules, but must be among those whose act of calling for industrial action would be an act of the union for the purposes of section 15 of the 1982 Act. The amendments also have the effect, by virtue of subsection (2), that industrial action is not taken with
the support of a ballot
for the purposes of section 10 of the 1984 Act and section 1 of the 1988 Act unless it is called by a person specified on the voting paper. Further conditions are contained in subsection (3).
In summary, the provisions mean that if a ballot is to give a union protection against legal proceedings for organising industrial action, the voting papers in a proper ballot must specify the person or persons authorised by the union to call the action to which the ballot relates. If there is a call to take action by any official who is not specified on the voting paper, the union will have no protection. In practice this means, for example, that if the union does not repudiate effectively what the unspecified official has done, it will be liable to legal proceedings by employers and-or members.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Secretary of State saying that specified persons must be the president, every member of the executive and every shop steward employed in the company in which there is a ballot? What does he mean by a specified person?

Mr. Howard: It is for the trade union to decide whom it wishes to specify on the ballot paper. We do not intend to limit the power of the trade union to specify an appropriate person. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied with that answer and that he will congratulate the Government on the openness of this part of the provisions.
Why have we come forward with these provisions? First, we believe that it is right that union members voting in an industrial action ballot should know whom their union intends to have the authority to call for the action to which the ballot relates. Secondly, where a ballot produces a majority in favour of action, union members should know whether an official's call to take that action following the ballot has the backing of their union. Thirdly, it would clearly be contrary to one of the main purposes of the Bill if a union leadership were allowed simply to stand aside if there is a premature call to take action by wholly unauthorised officials following a ballot. The provisions of the amendments mean that if this happens in future—and it happened, for example, only last year when Ford shop stewards did exactly that—the union will have to repudiate the call effectively or accept liability to court action by an employer or member.
In summary, the new clause enhances democratic practice, and is a logical extension of the law in view of the provisions of the Bill which will, very properly, make unions responsible for what their officials, including shop stewards, do.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The Secretary of State says that it is up to the trade union to specify the appropriate people. Will he ensure that the people who are specified and whose names appear on the ballot paper are given immunity from subsequent victimisation by the employers?

Mr. Howard: I do not see how that matter arises. Those people are likely to be officers of the trade union concerned. If the union thinks it appropriate, they can be shop stewards, but that is a matter entirely for the union, which can nominate whomever it thinks appropriate for these purposes.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Perhaps the Minister will recall the family that used to be in a radio programme, one of the parents in which used to say, "Find out what. Johnny is doing and stop him." That is basically the way in which the Government operate in these matters. Workers have very few rights, but when industrial action occurs from time to time the Government bring in legislation to stop it. The Minister gave an example of what happened at Ford. Would he like to explain in more detail what happened and what he is trying to stop?

Mr. Howard: I thought that I had explained that. All we are trying to do is to make sure that everybody should know in advance who is entitled to call industrial action after a ballot has taken place. At Ford, the official union leadership did not recommend that action should be taken following the ballot. Shop stewards recommended action and claimed the protection of the ballot, although it was almost certainly within everyone's contemplation that it

was the union leadership that had called the ballot and that it should be responsible for calling action pursuant to that ballot. We are not suggesting that in no circumstances should shop stewards be able to call industrial action and claim the protection of the ballot. We suggest that if they are to have that protection they should be specified on the ballot paper so that everyone knows the exact position and there is no doubt or misunderstanding.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does not the Secretary of State see a possible difficulty? If the union puts on the ballot paper every member of its executive and every shop steward in the company, what happens if there is a division of opinion, as often occurs between the executive and the shop stewards? The shop stewards may take one view and the union may take another. How will that help industrial relations?

Mr. Howard: No doubt the union will wish to reflect on that matter when deciding who to name on the ballot paper. As I have said, that is entirely a matter fix the union. If it wishes to confine decisions to its executive it will name on the ballot paper only members of its executive. If it wishes to extend to shop stewards the power to take this decision it will name them on the ballot paper.
We believe that union members should have a vote in a properly conducted secret ballot, and that such a ballot must produce a majority in favour of taking action before their union calls on them to take any industrial action. The amendments will help to ensure that future union ballots about official action give voters the information to which they are entitled and that union leaders will not be able to evade their proper responsibility if industrial action is called by an unauthorised official following such a ballot.
These are sensible measures which will be welcomed by employers, sensible union members, and the public at large. If some union leaders and the Opposition resist them, as apparently they intend to do, that can only be interpreted as further opposition to the very idea that there should be proper democratic practices in union affairs, and that unions should be properly responsible for what their officials do. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Tony Blair: The new clause is totally unnecessary. It will land trade unions in interminable legal wrangling, and it is a recipe for chaos. It has been introduced without any consultation or discussion, it has not been the subject of any Green Paper or White Paper and it was never mentioned in Committee. It is a piece of political meddling and that is the only reason for its introduction. In its brief the British Institute of Management says:
We remain unconvinced of the beneficial effect of the proposal that Unions become liable for unofficial action undertaken by Union officials…Placing excessive further legislation in the area of industrial relations immediately introduces an element of confrontation between employer and union, de-stabilising the relationship by providing one side with a weapon.
Questions have been asked about the names on the ballot paper and whether a person might be liable to victimisation. Clause 6 contains detailed provisions about union endorsement of action and repudiation, and they are far tougher than the normal rules and regulations of companies. Surely, once the ballot is held, it should be up to the union to decide who it wants to call the action.
Let us suppose that the union wishes to change a person on the ballot paper. Does that invalidate the entire exercise? I suppose that it does under the new clause.
5.30 pm
Secondly, I wish to put a point to the right hon. and learned Gentleman which, if he were serious and responsible, he would wish to reflect upon. Let us suppose that a ballot is held and that there is then an unofficial strike call. Currently, because the strike is not called by the union, it is unofficial. Under the proposed new clause, an unofficial strike called by someone not specified on the ballot paper would be unlawful industrial action for which the union would be liable—except in the one set of circumstances mentioned in the Secretary of State's press release of 9 May, which is if the union repudiates the action. Let us suppose that the ballot had a majority in favour of industrial action and shop stewards who were not specified on the ballot paper called out their members, and the union then decided that it agreed with that action. Does that mean that unless the union repudiates the action it is unlawful? If the union wants to endorse the action and make it official, does it have to re-ballot? We need answers to those practical questions
I am astonished that nothing was mentioned in Committee about the new clause. The only example that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave was of an industrial dispute last year, not one during or subsequent to the Committee proceedings. The only reason for the new clause is to place a further disproportionate and unfair burden on trade unions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman already has adequate provisions in the Bill and he should not put on unions further burdens that could land them in legal action for no good reason.

Mr. James Wallace: The new clause is trivial and can lead only to further confusion. It is objectionable. It might, perhaps, add some knowledge to mankind if those who can call industrial action are specified on the ballot paper. However, that can lead only to further opportunities for lawyers to have some fun. The courts have already said that they find this area of industrial relations law complicated enough, without the Secretary of State making it even more complicated.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not answer the legitimate question asked by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). The new clause provides for the specifying of not only a single person, but several persons. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North said that a number of people might be specified, but that after the ballot had been held and there was a majority in favour of industrial action—the very circumstances to which the new clause is directed—there might be a split among those specified persons. After all, it is not at that stage that a union decides whom to specify—they have already been specified. How does that improve the present practice? As the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said, nothing has happened since the end of the Committee stage to prompt the new clause. It indulges in a degree of detail that can only benefit lawyers and does little to enhance industrial relations.
Our amendment (a) seeks to tackle the conditions set out in subsections (3)(a) and (4). When read in conjuction with clause 6, it appears that if an official, whether or not

specified by the union, called action on a particular issue, and if the union failed to repudiate that action, there could never be a valid strike ballot on that issue. That could lead to the anomaly of union members declaring in favour of action, but, under the new clause, the will of that majority being defeated and a valid strike ballot not taking place. I am sure that that is not what is intended—or perhaps it is. That is why we tabled our amendment.
If the Government are trying to achieve the aims set out by the Secretary of State, that can be done by subsections (1) and (2), and further conditions are not necessary. The new clause is trivial. On a day when unemployment seems to be rising again, the Secretary of State surely has better matters on which to concentrate his mind.

Mr. Howard: I am astonished by the reaction to these modest provisions which, far from complicating matters, clarify them. They enable trade unions to make it clear, with considerable precision—as much as they think appropriate, having regard to the conditions—who should be allowed to call industrial action. It is a simple clarifying measure and the Opposition's reaction astonishes me.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Something has just crossed my mind. What would happen if the person nominated on the ballot form passed away? Would there need to be a fresh ballot?

Mr. Howard: Not at all—the other people specified can call the industrial action——

Mr. Skinner: What if only one person is specified?

Mr. Howard: That might be a good reason for a trade union not doing anything so foolish as to name only one person. It is entirely a matter for the union. If it were foolish enough to specify only one person who then, unfortunately, suffered the fate predicated by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), it would have to hold another ballot. That is why it would be so silly for a trade union to specify only one person.
I wish to answer the questions posed by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). These provisions follow so directly and consistently the general structure of the remainder of the Bill that there is hardly any need to consult on them. Anyone with strong views has had the opportunity to express them. They fit within the framework and the structure of the Bill.
If I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, he requested that a union should be allowed to choose those authorised to take action. It is. That is the purpose of the provisions. As I said, the union would make that decision.

Mr. Blair: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman deal with the point that concerns us most? If a shop steward who is not specified on the ballot paper decides to call out his members—let us suppose that he calls them out at 2.45 pm—and the union is also minded to call out the members—let us say that it intends to do so at 3pm—do the provisions of the new clause mean that the union could not endorse the action of the shop steward at 2.45 pm and that a fresh ballot would have to be held?

Mr. Howard: If those who are specified on the ballot wish to exercise their right to call for industrial action, they can do so. Their right to do so is not affected by the fact that someone who was not authorised to do so had already done so.

Mr. Blair: Let us get this point perfectly clear. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that if there is an official strike call, the union can repudiate that but then endorse it?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is predicating a sequence of actions on the part of a trade union which is difficult to follow. A few moments ago, he described a situation in which, within minutes of someone who was not on the ballot paper calling industrial action, the union and those who were authorised to take industrial action by being named on the ballot paper chose so to do. Their ability so to do would in no way be affected by the fact that someone else who was not authorised had done so. Therefore, that cannot conceivably be a serious problem.

Mr. Leighton: Some of us are a bit perplexed about why the Minister has introduced the new clause at this late stage and why he is getting involved in such pernickety detail. Who has asked for this? Was it the trade unions or employers? Did he consult anybody? There was nothing in his Green Paper about it. Has any reputable body asked for this? Why has he become involved in this a year after the event, when it was not considered in Committee?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will not be entirely astonished to hear that we can look at such matters, decide whether there is a mischief which needs to be remedied and take the appropriate action if we think that it is necessary. It is not necessary in every case to wait for someone to suggest that action should be taken. In the light of the circumstances which arose in the Ford dispute last year, it seemed sensible to clarify the matter, to remove the confusion and to make it entirely clear that a trade union should be in a position to specify in advance just who should he authorised to take the appropriate action following a ballot.
Amendment (a) would remove certain requirements which are part of the present law on balloting for industrial action. Perhaps the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) will tell us whether that is his intention. For example, the amendment appears designed to allow trade unions to call for industrial action before holding a proper secret ballot if the official who calls the action is specified on the voting paper.

Mr. Wallace: I said that the mischief that the amendment was designed to tackle was that subsection (3)(a), read with subsection (4) and clause 6(3), could mean that, if any union official not mentioned on the ballot paper, whether employed by the union or not, called on the members to strike on a particular issue, there could be no subsequent strike ballot on that issue. That may be a wrong interpretation, but that was the mischief which we were trying to attack. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that such a situation could not arise? If so, there would be no need for the amendment. But if it could arise, is that something which he would countenance? If not, can he suggest a form of words which would tackle that without giving rise to the consequential effects of my amendment which he has described?

Mr. Howard: In answer to my challenge, the hon. Gentleman has raised an entirely different point which I have already answered because it was put to me by the hon. Member for Sedgefield. The fact remains that amendment (a) would allow trade unions to call for industrial action before holding a proper secret ballot. The

question I posed, which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has conspicuously failed to answer, is whether that was his intention.

Mr. Wallace: That was not my intention. The Minister knows my intention and he is being oleaginous in the extreme in not answering directly.

Mr. Howard: I am delighted to hear that that is not the hon. Gentleman's intention. Perhaps in those circumstances he will accept that his amendment is misconceived.
The amendment would also remove the requirement that the call for action by a person specified on the ballot voting paper should be within four weeks of the ballot—another provision of the existing law which is an entirely necessary and reasonable requirement, which the hon. Gentleman appears to acknowledge.
The hon. Gentleman's amendment would also strike out provisions that are necessary to determine what is to be taken for relevant purposes as a call by a trade union. If those provisions were deleted in accordance with the amendment, that would simply produce confusion and doubt. In addition, as if that were not enough, it would leave it unclear whether a union could ever escape liability for a premature call by an unauthorised official, which the present provisions allow through the process of effective repudiation.
The fears, such as they are, that have been expressed by Opposition Members are entirely misplaced. This is a sensible and modest provision which introduces clarity and greater certainty into the law, and I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 149.

Division No. 213]
[5.45 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Aitken, Jonathan
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Alexander, Richard
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Conway, Derek


Amess, David
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Amos, Alan
Curry, David


Arbuthnot, James
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Atkins, Robert
Day, Stephen


Atkinson, David
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Benyon, W.
Dover, Den


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dunn, Bob


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Durant, Tony


Body, Sir Richard
Dykes, Hugh


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Eggar, Tim


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Evennett, David


Boswell, Tim
Fallon, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Farr, Sir John


Bowis, John
Favell, Tony


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Fishburn, John Dudley


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Forman, Nigel


Bright, Graham
Fox, Sir Marcus


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Franks, Cecil


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Freeman, Roger


Buck, Sir Antony
Gardiner, George


Budgen, Nicholas
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Burns, Simon
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Butcher, John
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Butler, Chris
Goodlad, Alastair


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carrington, Matthew
Gorst, John


Chapman, Sydney
Gow, Ian


Chope, Christopher
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)






Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gregory, Conal
Moate, Roger


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Monro, Sir Hector


Ground, Patrick
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hague, William
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Moss, Malcolm


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Neubert, Michael


Hanley, Jeremy
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hannam, John
Nicholls, Patrick


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Harris, David
Norris, Steve


Haselhurst, Alan
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hawkins, Christopher
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Page, Richard


Hayward, Robert
Patnick, Irvine


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Pawsey, James


Hill, James
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Portillo, Michael


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Powell, William (Corby)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Raff an, Keith


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Rhodes James, Robert


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Riddick, Graham


Irvine, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Irving, Sir Charles
Rost, Peter


Jack, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Jackson, Robert
Ryder, Richard


Janman, Tim
Sackville, Hon Tom


Jessel, Toby
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Key, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Kilfedder, James
Shelton, Sir William


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knapman, Roger
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Knowles, Michael
Speed, Keith


Knox, David
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lang, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Latham, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stevens, Lewis


Lightbown, David
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lilley, Peter
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Stokes, Sir John


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sumberg, David


Lord, Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


McCrindle, Robert
Temple-Morris, Peter


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Maclean, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Madel, David
Thorne, Neil


Malins, Humfrey
Thurnham, Peter


Mans, Keith
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Maples, John
Tracey, Richard


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Mates, Michael
Watts, John


Maude, Hon Francis
Widdecombe, Ann


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick



Mellor, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Nicholas Baker


Miller, Sir Hal



Mills, Iain



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Allen, Graham
Bermingham, Gerald


Alton, David
Bidwell, Sydney


Anderson, Donald
Blair, Tony


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Boateng, Paul


Armstrong, Hilary
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Battle, John
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Beckett, Margaret
Buchan, Norman


Beith, A. J.
Buckley, George J.





Caborn, Richard
McKelvey, William


Callaghan, Jim
McLeish, Henry


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Maclennan, Robert


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McWilliam, John


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Madden, Max


Cartwright, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Marek, Dr John


Clay, Bob
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cohen, Harry
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Coleman, Donald
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Martlew, Eric


Corbett, Robin
Maxton, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Meale, Alan


Cryer, Bob
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cummings, John
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dixon, Don
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Doran, Frank
Mowlam, Marjorie


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Murphy, Paul


Eastham, Ken
Nellist, Dave


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
O'Brien, William


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Parry, Robert


Flannery, Martin
Patchett, Terry


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Pike, Peter L.


Foster, Derek
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Foulkes, George
Prescott, John


Fraser, John
Primarolo, Dawn


Fyfe, Maria
Quin, Ms Joyce


Galloway, George
Redmond, Martin


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Reid, Dr John


Gould, Bryan
Richardson, Jo


Graham, Thomas
Robertson, George


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Ruddock, Joan


Grocott, Bruce
Salmond, Alex


Haynes, Frank
Sedgemore, Brian


Henderson, Doug
Sheerman, Barry


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Short, Clare


Home Robertson, John
Skinner, Dennis


Hood, Jimmy
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Howells, Geraint
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Snape, Peter


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Soley, Clive


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Turner, Dennis


Illsley, Eric
Wallace, James


Ingram, Adam
Walley, Joan


Janner, Greville
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Wigley, Dafydd


Leadbitter, Ted
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Leighton, Ron
Winnick, David


Lewis, Terry
Worthington, Tony


Litherland, Robert
Wray, Jimmy


Livingstone, Ken
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)



Loyden, Eddie
Tellers for the Noes:


McAllion, John
Mr. Frank Cook and Mrs. Llin Golding.


McAvoy, Thomas



McCrea, Rev William

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

EMPLOYER'S BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTY

'An industrial tribunal shall have jurisdiction to entertain a claim for unfair dismissal by an employee dismissed for taking part in unofficial industrial action where it finds that the reason for the action was a genuine and reasonable belief by the employee that the employer was acting in breach of


statutory duty whether in respect of health and safety matters or other matters connected with the terms and conditions of the employees of the employer.'.—[Mr. Tony Lloyd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this, it will be convenient to take the following: amenclment (a) to the new clause, at end insert
`or because the employee or employees were genuinely unaware of action being taken by their union to try and resolve the dispute.'.
New clause 4—Health and Safety—
'An employer has no right to dismiss selectively any employee who refuses to work on any site, location, or job which the said employee considers to be dangerous to his health, or involves contact with any substance he has grounds to believe is hazardous to health.'.
Amendment (a) to new clause 4, after 'right' insert
'without seeking the advice of the Health and Safety Executive'.
New clause 7—Involvement of Health and Safety Inspectorate
'In circumstances where an employee refuses to work on any site or job in which he believes there is a danger to his health, a Health and Safety Inspector must be called under such circumstances to inspect the site or job, from whom a formal safety declaration will be required before any work resumes.'.
New clause 8—Safety Committees—
'(1) Every employer shall be required to establish a safety committee at his place of work to which his employees shall elect representatives.
(2) The safety committee, which shall comprise equal numbers of employer and employee representatives, shall, by majority vote, have the authority to suspend work where it believes there is a risk of harm or serious injury to employees or to ancillary workers.
(3) The suspension of work shall remain in force until the alleged hazard has been inspected by a Health and Safety Inspector and a formal declaration by the Health and Safety Inspector that the hazard has been removed.'.
Amendment No. 19, in clause 7, page 7, line 26, after `(1)', insert
'save where matters of health and safety are concerned.'.
Amendment No. 24, in page 7, line 37, at end add—
'(c)) The action is being taken by employees who genuinely believe that their employer is in breach of statutory duty in respect of health and safety matters.'.

Mr. Lloyd: As the Minister of State knows, because the pattern is familiar to us—and I believe it would be fair to say that he has no reputation to lose—the clauses in the Bill to which we took the strongest exception are those dealing with unofficial action. We particularly object to the concept of selective dismissal for the crime, in the Government's eyes, of taking unofficial industrial action. The Government also seek to take away any protection whatsoever from a person sacked for that reason in respect of recourse to an industrial tribunal. That represents a further significant move away from any semblance of fairness.
We have raised that issue on a number of occasions but received no satisfactory answer. Employees who felt compelled, in order to maintain a health and safety regime at their place of work, to take a form of industrial action might find themselves threatened with the loss of their jobs, and would have no protection under present law.
We have already established in general terms that the very interests that the Government prayed in aid as in need

of protection against such action have said that they do not want it. I refer in particular to the reaction of London Regional Transport. The strikes on the underground were one motive for the Government's rush into this legislation. LRT made it clear that it felt that this part of the Employment Bill was useless and would be counterproductive to good industrial relations.
6 pm
On numerous occasions we told the Government that people had been forced to take industrial action in defence of health and safety. One illustration that I gave to the Minister was the strike on the Isle of Grain site in the Thames estuary, when people producing concrete linings for the channel tunnel project took industrial action because the company refused the request for a permanent staff nurse on site. Although there was industrial action, there was no interruption of the contract of employment by management and nothing that the Minister could use in his defence to say that management were outside the scope of the legislation. The workers who took strike action in February 1989 would have been liable to selective dismissal had the rules in the Bill been in force. The Bill would have allowed management to pick off the ring leaders of the strike.
In Committee, the Minister's defence was that people wishing to take unofficial industrial action already had legal rights if management operated an unsafe health and safety regime, as it had therefore abrogated its contract of employment with the work force; therefore, the clauses Nos. 1 and 4 would not have any impact.
The Opposition has taken a considerable amount of advice on the issue, and the Minister has already seen some of it. He knows that there is no reputable legal argument to sustain the view put forward by the Government in Committee. The Minister may want to pray in aid other sources of information, but I think that legal opinion is unanimous in the view that the law is clear about what constitutes unofficial industrial action.
In Committee, the case of Power Casemakers Limited v. Faust established that when judging unofficial industrial action as defined in the two new clauses, the employers' or employees' motivation does not need to be taken into consideration. What is relevant is whether the employer was in breach of his contract with his employees when unofficial action was taken. The Minister looks puzzled, but we have pointed this out on a number of occasions, and I am surprised that the arguments still puzzle him. This issue is central to the Minister's case and it is central to our case, because he is wrong, and that exposes people in their workplace to injury and to losing their jobs if they seek recourse to industrial action to protect themselves.
At the moment, much attention is focused on the channel tunnel. It is a pity that the Secretary of State has chosen to absent himself from the debate. I was pleased to see him driven from his inertia on health and safety last week. He did something positive about the disgraceful accident rate in the tunnel. If Conservative Members feel that that is not the case, perhaps they would like to say what the Minister has done in the past when people have been dying. I do not think that Conservative Members are in any position to argue that case, because the Minister did nothing until he was driven to it by the considerable criticism of the tunnel company in the press.
I have been asking about this issue for some time. I wish to draw the House's attention to a log book for locomotive drivers working in the tunnel. One driver's comment was:
The warning beacon obstructs the view to the rear. If somebody is killed as a result of poor visibility to the rear it will be blamed on the driver. These beacons are put in a ludicrous position right in the driver's field of vision…Move them before somebody is hurt or killed".
The same point is made time and again in the log books. They are available to the company; they are the company's log books. However, nothing is done.
Ironically, one of the locomotive drivers was sacked yesterday by Transmanche Link. He drove one of the vehicles which are considered to be unsafe. The company claims that he had refused to take instructions about where he was to work and it suspended him. He went through a four-stage disciplinary hearing, which found him guilty of indiscipline. That may be the case, but he claims that he was dismissed because he was a safety representative and because he had refused to work in conditions which he thought to be unsafe.
The point at issue is that, as the law stands, that man has the opportunity to claim that he was unfairly dismissed, but once the Bill comes into force, if the company can argue that he was taking industrial action or refusing to work, because it would be classed as unofficial action, he could be dismissed without recourse to a tribunal. There would have been no examination of the rights or wrongs of the case.
We know that work in the channel tunnel is unsafe. Even the Secretary of State is concerned about that now. One reason is there is considerable pressure on workers to put progress before safety, with the result that there has been a high accident and death rate.
If we take away workers' rights to defend themselves by having recourse to some form of industrial action, the Minister will once again put lives at risk in the tunnel. I insist that the Minister deals with that issue when he responds to the debate.
Legal opinion is firmly on our side in this matter. In Committee and on Second Reading the Minister said that it was not his intention to make life more difficult for people in the workplace as regards health and safe working conditions. If that is the case, the modest amendments that we have tabled would not undermine the two clauses dealing with unofficial industrial action but would give recourse to an industrial tribunal—in new clause 1—so that it could decide whether health and safety issues had been a factor in dismissals. We are not asking the Minister to rip up the Bill or that part of it which deals with unofficial action. We are building into the Bill a simple defence so that workers will not feel that the only way that they can protect themselves is by using industrial action to guarantee that they and their workmates are not put at unnecessary risk.
It would be simple for the Minister to accept the new clauses as a minimum form of safety standard. If he does that he will have the support of the whole House, but if he does not, he must examine the consequences for people at work. He will be jeopardising their position and putting them at risk of injury or ultimately, as we have seen in the channel tunnel, of death.

Mr. John P. Smith: I agree implicitly with my hon. Friend's argument about people at work. This issue could also affect the public in some circumstances. Earlier he referred to London Regional

Transport and British Rail. The increase in the number of near misses and cases of overshooting red lights reported by British Rail is worrying. Train drivers involved could take action to improve the situation. I am not saying that they will have to do that, but I can see that sometimes there is a need for them to do so, and that would benefit the public. By introducing a restriction on such workers, we put the public at risk.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. It is not only workers who can be involved in accidents. Last weekend, two young children in my constituency got on to British Rail property and were electrocuted by touching the overhead line. The question now is whether British Rail was negligent, but that has to be established. However, my hon. Friend is right: had an employee taken action to protect those young children, he would have acted in a socially responsible way but, without the addition of the new clauses, it would have put him outside the provisions of the Bill.
Amendment (a), tabled by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel), to new clause 1 seeks to extend the scope of the new clause. It provides for recourse to an industrial tribunal if
the employee or employees were genuinely unaware of action being taken by their trade union to try and resolve the dispute.
There is merit in the amendment. It is a reasonable defence. If the Minister were to say that he is prepared to accept the new clause but not the amendment, we should have to reconsider our position. However, I hope that the Minister will recognise the logic of accepting both new clause 1 and amendment (a).

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Tim Eggar): On Second Reading and in Committee we made it clear that we accept some of the concerns that have led to the tabling of the new clauses and their related amendments, since they are inspired by a genuine desire to ensure that health and safety standards at workplaces are maintained or improved. The Government fully share that aim. We would not propose legislation that we believed would in any way undermine those standards. We are totally committed to the health and safety arrangements that have been established by law. It is a non-partisan matter. We agree entirely that nothing should put those arrangements at risk.
A degree of common ground should exist and, I believe, does exist over health and safety matters. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, governing health and safety matters, was drawn up by a former Conservative Government and enacted by a subsequent Labour Government. The Act placed the prime responsibility for health and safety fairly and squarely on the shoulders of employers, with the co-operation of their employees. That legislation was rightly recognised to be a milestone in helping to secure and improve health and safety standards in this country, and it is generally well regarded internationally.
The Act is kept under review by the tripartite Health and Safety Commission, which can propose improvements if it decides that they are needed. It is, and will continue to be, unlawful to work or to be asked to work in unsafe conditions. No employee, by definition, can be required by his employer to do something unlawful. The Bill does absolutely nothing to change that. At times in Committee, and during the hon. Gentleman's speech, it was implied


that the effect and purpose of the Bill was to undermine the high standards for health and safety standards at work. That is not the case.

Mr.. John Evans: The Minister has uttered fine words about the 1974 Act. He says that he appreciates the concern expressed by the Opposition, particularly in Committee. Will he accept the intention behind one of the amendments and incorporate it in clause 7? If he does not accept the intention which underlines one of the amendments—the Minister can choose which one to accept—his fine words will be meaningless, and events in the next two years, as cases come to light, will show that his words were meaningless.

Mr. Eggar: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me as I hope to deal with the effect of the new clauses. These are serious and difficult matters. I hope that, by the time I sit down, I shall have explained to the hon. Gentleman why the Government have difficulty with the proposals.
The issue debated in Committee was technical—whether simple refusal to do unsafe work could be regarded as taking industrial action. We have considered that question carefully, and our conclusion is clear and unequivocal. The Government are absolutely confident that no court or tribunal has found, or would find, that simple refusal to do unsafe work amounts to taking industrial action. It follows that, if an employee simply refuses to do work that he believes to be unsafe and is dismissed, an industrial tribunal has, and will continue to have, jurisdiction to determine whether that dismissal was fair or unfair.
The legislation on unfair dismissal was enacted by the last Labour Government. That legislation, which made the dismissal of strikers fair in certain circumstances, made no special provision for refusal to work on grounds of health and safety. If there was no need for such a provision then, there is no need now.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Leaving aside the last Employment Bill, now an Act, that made provision for deposits to get into the industrial tribunal system, industrial tribunals cannot order a company to take a worker back into employment. If a worker knows that, although he can find his way through the maze of industrial tribunal legislation he will not get his job back, he will still knuckle under, believing that he must do as he is told if he is to keep his job. That is happening now on the Channel tunnel project.

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman is not dealing with the point at issue, which has been discussed at some length—whether simple refusal to do work in unsafe conditions amounts to industrial action. That is a critical question. If it is held to be industrial action, the Bill will affect the right of referral to industrial tribunals. If—as is our position—a simple refusal to do work is not industrial action, the position will be as it has always been and it will be totally unaffected by the Bill.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Minister has chosen his words carefully. He says that he is sure that a simple refusal to do work would not constitute industrial action. That, as he knows, is a contentious statement. There are those who disagree with his view. As there is doubt, it is incumbent on

the Minister to ensure that the law says precisely what he claims that it says. He ought not to allow the matter ultimately to be tested in the courts.
The Minister must also define what he means by simple refusal. For example, would an overtime ban in support of a health and safety measure constitute simple refusal to do work, or would it constitute industrial action? The overwhelming legal opinion is that it would constitute industrial action. If the Minister is saying that in those circumstances he believes that people should lose their jobs, he should make it clear at the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Eggar: The case that the hon. Gentleman has postulated would have to be decided on the facts. He quoted the Faust case, but the Faust judgment made it clear that people would know industrial action when they saw it—in other words, it would have to be decided on the facts.

Mr. Wallace: My point follows the question raised by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd). Is not the effect of not accepting the amendments and not clarifying the position to put another barrier in the way of an employee who is dismissed and who then has to take the case to a tribunal to determine, first, whether the tribunal has jurisdiction before it can decide the fairness or unfairness of the dismissal? The fact that the law as it stands gives the tribunal no automatic jurisdiction must be a disincentive to test the system. I know that the Minister's concern about health and safety at work is genuine, but the Government would lose nothing by accepting the new clause, at least in principle, and getting rid of the doubt.

Mr. Eggar: I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not give way again. That is not meant in any way as a discourtesy, but I am aware of the time. I hope that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) will bear with me as I develop the argument.
In practice, the difficulty revolves around the problem of how one defines industrial action. It has been the view of successive Governments—the last Labour Government and the present Government—that it is extremely difficult to define industrial action and that the best solution is to leave it to industrial tribunals, and if necessary the Court of Appeal, to decide in the light of the facts of any particular case. I understand the appeal of seeking to define industrial action and we have considered the matter in considerable detail, but we do not believe that it is necessarily the right course.

Mr. Blair: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Eggar: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I said that I would not give way again. I hope that he will have a chance to make his point, and I shall be happy to answer it.
It is far from obvious that simply stopping work is always the right course for an employee who genuinely believes that working conditions are unsafe. Except in a minority of cases in which there is or is believed to be some real, immediate and serious risk of personal injury, there are other options—for example, employees can take matters up with their local health and safety inspector.
The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) referred to a conflict of legal views. Earlier this afternoon, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) was kind enough to let me have a legal opinion. I do not consider that that strengthens his case. If he looks at the questions that were


asked of learned counsel in that opinion, he will realise that he asked the wrong questions. Question 3 relates to industrial action, but the issue is whether a simple refusal to carry out unsafe work constitutes industrial action. I can only recommend that Opposition Members read the first page of that opinion and the third question that was asked. They will find that they asked the wrong question. It is not surprising that, the wrong question having been asked, the answer does not address the issue before the House—that is, whether a simple refusal to work on health and safety grounds constitutes industrial action. Our view is that it does not.

Mr. Blair: We have to clarify that. After all, most hon. Members consider that if there is a serious difference, the sensible course would be to remove any area of doubt instead of leaving it to someone to go to a tribunal some time later. Our adviser was asked whether a stoppage of work for health and safety reasons would constitute unofficial industrial action, and the answer was that it would be unofficial industrial action irrespective of the reasons or motivation behind the stoppage.

Mr. Eggar: That exactly proves my point. That is not the question at issue between us. I am perplexed that the hon. Gentleman has not yet focused on whether a simple refusal to carry out unsafe work would be industrial action. Our view—it was clearly and explicitly stated in Committee and I have explained the matter to the hon. Gentleman in person—is that a simple refusal to do unsafe work would not be industrial action. That is the issue that we have been debating.

Mr. John Evans: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Mr. Eggar: No, I must address the new clauses and amendments proposed by the Opposition.
The new clauses and amendments go well beyond the essentially technical issues discussed in Committee. As I have already said, a simple refusal to work in unsafe conditions will not make employees liable to selective dismissal without the right to have a tribunal determine the unfairness of any such dismissal, but new clause 1 and amendments Nos. 19 and 24 seek to go very much further. In a nutshell, those Opposition amendments and new clauses seek to carve out some special protection for unofficial strikers, and the net result would be a charter for unofficial action.
New clause 1 gives the game away by stating that industrial tribunal jurisdiction to determine the fairness of dismissal is to remain even if unofficial strikers are selectively dismissed for taking action about other matters.
Clearly, that goes well beyond health and safety concerns, and the hon. Gentleman recognises that.
Amendments Nos. 19 and 24 would undermine the intended effect of clause 7, as they would allow any unofficial striker who was selectively dismissed to get round the law simply by claiming that he had some health and safety concern. New clause 4 would mean that any employee who refused to work and subsequently claimed that he considered his work to be unsafe would have a right not to be selectively dismissed. That would apply even if it were patently obvious that the employee was taking industrial action, even if it was unofficial action, at

the time of his dismissal. In other words, the amendments—individually or collectively—would drive a coach and horses through the present law on dismissal, let alone the new law on unofficial action in clause 7.
Similarly, new clauses 7 and 8 seek to upset the well established and effective balance of responsibility set out in the Health and Safety At Work, etc. Act 1974. Those new clauses would unduly direct responsibility away from employers and employees and on to inspectors, which would seriously damage the effectiveness of inspectors in ensuring compliance with health and safety law.
We believe that health and safety problems should be resolved by employers, who have the primary legal responsibility in co-operation with the employees who may be affected. Leaving everything to be decided by the inspectors, as is proposed, would remove the employers' incentive to assess and deal with workplace risks. If employers do not deal satisfactorily with health and safety problems, employees are and will remain free to contact their local health and safety inspector—in confidence, if they feel that that is appropriate. I need not remind the House that inspectors can visit without warning and can order work to be stopped if there is a risk of serious injury.
A proliferation of committees, as proposed by new clause 8, would not work in this role, and such committees would inevitably conflict with the joint committees, statutory and voluntary, which already exist to monitor health and safety measures in individual workplaces.
The key points of our concern about the new clauses and amendment No. 19 are that it is, and will continue to be, unlawful to work or to be asked to work in unsafe conditions, and no employee can be required by his employer to do something unlawful. If an employee simply refused to do work that he believed to be unsafe, he would not be taking industrial action. Thus, an industrial tribunal would have jurisdiction to determine whether dismissal was fair or unfair.
No court and no tribunal has ever found that simple refusal to do unsafe work amounts to industrial action. Legislation on unfair dismissal enacted by the last Labour Government which made dismissal of strikers fair made no special provision for refusal to work on grounds of health and safety.
This has been a useful exchange on a complicated and technical matter. I remain convinced that there is nothing incompatible between our commitment to maintaining high health and safety standards and the measures in the Bill to provide effective remedies and to deter unofficial industrial action.

Mr. John Evans: The Opposition amendments seek only to ameliorate the impact of clause 7. Like my hon. Friends, I regard the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) as helpful and I support them.
This is an obnoxious Bill, and clause 7 is the offensive part of it. Indeed, the measures that the Government are introducing are the type of trade union legislation that is being swept away by eastern European countries as they find their freedom. The Minister knows as well as I do that legislation of this type was inflicted on the workers by dictator Ceausescu of Romania and is being cast aside as the Romanian people attain freedom.
Clause 7 would remove the right of workers participating in any unofficial action to appeal to a tribunal on the ground of unfair dismissal. It would also remove their statutory rights to, for example, redundancy payments and pregnancy leave. The Government have become muddled. They continually confuse unofficial strikes with unofficial action. The Green Paper entitled "Unofficial Action and The Law" referred in paragraphs 1.2, 1.3, 1.5 and 1.14 to unofficial strikes and unofficial action in almost the same breath.
Hon. Members, particularly on the Opposition Benches, with experience of industrial affairs will be aware that unofficial strikes are generally spontaneous acts, such as walking off the job, whereas unofficial action can take a variety of forms, including a sit-down strike, a ban on overtime, a work to rule or a refusal to work in dangerous or unsafe places, with unsafe tools and equipment or with unsafe or dangerous materials and substances.
I am particularly worried to note that a senior Minister believes that no worker in Britain is ever asked to work in unsafe conditions or with unsafe tools or materials and that no arguments ever occur over such matters. I assure him, having spent my working life in shipyards and ship repair yards—the Minister seems to be indicating dissent; he has never worked in such places—that people do work in conditions that are highly dangerous and often unsafe.
The weakness in the Minister's argument lies in the question of who is to decide when there is a dispute between the work force and the employer over whether a practice, tool or substance is safe or dangerous. Frequently in those circumstances the argument is resolved by the workers simply walking away from the material or job.
I am particularly worried about a situation that occurs frequently. When asbestos is found in a place of work where, for example, maintenance work is being undertaken, any worker would immediately walk off that job. Irrespective of the assurances given by the Minister, a worker taking such a step would immediately be at risk of losing his job because of the way in which clause 7 is drafted.
That clause enables the employer to choose who to dismiss, and, once dismissed under the terms of clause 7, the employee would have no right to go to a tribunal. A tribunal would not have jurisdiction in such a case. The worker would have been dismissed because he participated in industrial action, and the clause makes it clear that a tribunal would have no jurisdiction in that case. As I said in an intervention, the Minister could remove all our fears by including a provision, similar to that which we recommend in our amendments, relating to health and safety.
We appreciate that the best employers would never find themselves in such a situation, but there are rogue employers who might push workers in certain directions and who in some circumstances would be prepared to do so provocatively, seeking to create a confrontation. That would give an employer the opportunity to sack, for example, shop stewards or people with long service and considerable redundancy rights. An employer would have the right to get rid of pregnant women, who would then lose any rights that had accrued to them. One can envisage circumstances in which companies in financial difficulty would take action to reduce their compensation liabilities.
Is it fair or just that workers should be put at risk in such circumstances? Opposition Members have done their

best to concentrate their remarks on health and safety issues, although many other subjects could be discussed as we debate clause 7.
The Minister repeated what the Under-Secretary of State said in Committee:
To reassure Opposition Members, I have tried to find out whether, since the unfair dismissal legislation was first introduced in 1971, there have been any recorded cases of industrial action being taken solely on the grounds of health and safety that have led to people being dismissed. Inevitably, it is rather hard to prove a negative, but I have found no instance of it".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 15 March 1990; c. 353.]
That is hardly surprising because until now, the individuals concerned would have had the right to appeal to a tribunal on the ground of unfair dismissal. Any employer, even a rogue employer, would have known that he would be derided and laughed out of court the moment it was recognised that health and safety was the issue.
Unless the Minister amends the legislation, either here or in another place, to protect workers by statute in health and safety cases, clause 7 will cause the Government considerable problems. The clause is specific. Any individual taking part in unofficial industrial action immediately exposes himself to selective dismissal. That will happen, as the Minister knows. I only hope that in the Lobbies tonight, Tory Members know what they are voting for.

Mr. David Madel: I wish to address my remarks to amendment (a) to new clause 1 and amendment (a) to new clause 4. I assume that my hon. Friend the Minister will have a few words to say about them. He said that there had been an interesting exchange: Front-Bench Members may have had an interesting exchange, but we are only now getting going on the group of amendments. I shall not take up too much time, as I am conscious that other hon. Members wish to speak.
New clause 1 states:
An industrial tribunal shall have jurisdiction to entertain a claim for unfair dismissal".
That does not necessarily mean that such a claim would be successful. If new clause 1 is passed with amendment (a) tacked on to it, industrial tribunals will take on a somewhat new role with a pre-hearing capacity. However, there is nothing strange or unusual about changing the nature and function of industrial tribunals.
Industrial tribunals have been with us since 1964. There was a major change in 1971 and there may be major changes in the future. The first advantage of accepting amendment (a) would be that there would be encouragement for trade unions to get closer to their members if unofficial strike action was taken. Amendment (a) is designed to try to stop unofficial action getting out of control and to reduce to the bare minimum the danger of misunderstandings between trade unions and their members. It is also designed to encourage trade unions to intervene quickly and to let their members know that they are so intervening if unofficial action takes place or if it appears to members of the trade union that a grievance has not been dealt with quickly. It is also designed to try to put a brake on rash and hasty decisions by management which could occur if the Bill is passed unamended.
I do not wish to rehearse all the arguments that I made in Committee. I have already drawn attention to the wording that must be used in the letter from a trade union


to its members. I remain opposed to the way in which the words are written down, and to their tone and content. The letter must say:
Your union has repudiated any call for industrial action … If you are dismissed … you will have no right to complain of unfair dismissal.
That is not the language of industrial relations in the 1990s. It is too far removed from reality and too much like first world war generals barking orders to those on the ground. It would have been perfectly possible to change those words and still put the onus on the trade unions to intervene quickly to settle the grievance and on those taking unofficial action to cease taking it while the trade union tried to sort out the problem.
The most serious problem about new clause 1 is that it would take away the right of an individual to go to an industrial tribunal and for his case at least to be heard. In the often confused situation of an unofficial strike, there may be sudden dismissal of one or two people. To take away the right for a case to be looked at is neither reasonable nor correct. The Government have lost a sense of balance on the matter. I urge them to accept amendment (a) or to draft a provision similar to it in the other place.
6.45 pm
New clause 4, as at present drafted, could lead to misunderstandings, and it gives a great deal of freedom to the individual employee. It uses the words:
which the said employee considers to be dangerous to his health".
It is common sense that we should put on some brake before people walk off the job because they consider the conditions to be unsafe.
The channel tunnel and the accidents there have already been mentioned and the Opposition have already said that they propose to raise the matter further. Amendment (a) would lead to an avoidance of unnecessary confrontations between management and unions on the most important aspect of work—health and safety conditions. Under new clause 4, unofficial action would still be possible. The new clause could refer not only to one, but to two or three people whose selective dismissal could lead to widespread unofficial industrial action, and matters could soon become out of control.
Amendment (a) is designed to achieve three objectives. First, it is designed to ensure that when there is an argument between employers and employees about safety at work, the advice of the Health and Safety Executive must be sought at once. That does not mean that the employer necessarily has to accept its advice, although it is hard to imagine that, if there was clear advice that the conditions were unsafe, an employer would be likely to brush aside the advice of the Health and Safety Executive. For that reason, it would be up to the employer to say to the employee, "You are dissatisfied and you consider that the working conditions are dangerous—I am seeking the advice of the Health and Safety Executive now and I expect that there will then be tripartite discussions between the Health and Safety Executive, the employer and the employee."
Secondly, amendment (a) would give greater reassurance to employees who feel that they may be working in dangerous conditions that their anxieties would be dealt with quickly. Again, that would calm down industrial relations and give individual employees a greater sense of

security in their work. Thirdly, amendment (a) is relevant to young people in their first job. Such people are reluctant to start an argument with an employer about whether conditions are safe or not.
Amendment (a) would give greater protection to young employees. It would also give greater protection to female employees who might be equally unwilling and afraid to start an argument with an employer about safety conditions at work. More and more employers are seeking more and more women employees today. With the change to separate taxation, more women will seek employment. That puts an extra responsibility on Parliament to ensure that the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 is carried out properly and that there is no deterrent for women employees if they are concerned about conditions at work.
Science and technology change all the time. New substances constantly appear and there is a whole mass of information on new substances at work. Again, that could lead to somebody saying, "I am sorry, I am not satisfied with the handling of this substance—I must ask that the Health and Safety Executive look at it before I go on with my work." Amendment (a) to new clause 4 would strengthen the Health and Safety Executive and health and safety committees. It would make employers go into more detail in their annual reports about what they had done about health and safety conditions, which would be all to the good. It would also improve contact between management and employees about a vitally important part of industrial relations.
I have tried to turn a stumbling block into a stepping stone towards better industrial relations. I hope that Ministers will accept the amendments, but if they do not, it will be one of those days on which I must disagree with the Front Bench. The Conservative party is a centre-right coalition—a broad Church—and if there are disagreements between Conservative Members, that is par for the course and something which sometimes happens in Parliament.
My amendments seek to clarify the position for individual employees. We should reduce the danger of misunderstandings at work to a minimum, as they can lead to unofficial industrial action, and once that starts it is difficult to control.

Mr. Leighton: It is a great pleasure to follow such a thoughtful speech as that of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel). I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) made a persuasive case for the new clause. I also congratulate my hon. Friends on the first-class job that they did in Committee.
If employees find that they are in danger and take certain actions, are they protected? I have heard what the Minister has said, and the different legal opinions. At best, this is a grey area: the reasons why employees had taken certain actions could be disputed. For example, an employer could say that they had acted for one reason, while they could say that they had acted for health and safety reasons. Who is to decide?
The new clause says that an industrial tribunal should have jurisdiction to decide whether those employees had a genuine and reasonable belief. Surely that could be accepted by the House for the avoidance of doubt, for it would make matters clear to everyone. If the Minister accepts that people in such circumstances should have the right to a defence, why does he oppose the new clause?
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) has said that, in his experience, disputes often blow up unexpectedly. I could cite an example from my own experience. In a previous incarnation, I was a health and safety representative on a national newspaper. I was a member of the mechanical committee, on which there were trade union and management representatives. It did not deal with pay or conditions; it dealt with the state of the machinery, and with such things as the ventilation system.
On one occasion, we had a problem with the plates on a machine. Hon. Members will be familiar with the term "hot metal"; in those days there were hot metal plates on rotary presses, made of lead and other metals. The problem occurred when the plates started to break up on the print run. That was dangerous, as the plates were clamped on to the cylinders of high-speed rotary machines. If the plates broke, the centrifugal force sent the pieces of metal flying like shrapnel. As hon. Members can imagine, it was extremely dangerous.
The technical director did not know why the plates were breaking up. Tests were made, and he genuinely tried to find out the answer. We worked at night; he worked during the day, and at night was lucky enough to be in bed. He said that if the problem recurred we should shut down the unit on the press and not touch it until he returned in the morning, so that he could investigate what had happened.
There were many units on the press, including spare units. One night, as I was sitting in my office, I had a message that a plate had broken up again. I went to the machine room and told the machine operators that they were not to touch the unit, but to leave it until the technical director returned in the morning to examine it. However, a new junior member of the management came on to the scene and told the men to strip the unit, to put another load of plates on to the same unit and to continue with the job. I told him to hang on: we were following the technical director's instructions and leaving the unit as it was. He then got stroppy, and told us to get the unit stripped and to put new plates on.
Obviously we were in something of a dilemma, but the machine operators did as I had suggested. The junior manager took umbrage, saying that we were to finish for the night and that there would be no paper. He then stormed off. I chatted with the men and we decided that his reaction had been over the top and silly, and we produced the paper that night without any management. We got on better than usual, as there was no harassment from management—we had discovered that they were not really necessary. We even produced the paper for a second night. The Daily Telegraph published an article about the dispute, but it could not understand that we were taking what was considered to be industrial action—although we were continuing to work—for reasons of health and safety rather than money.
I have no doubt that there are many incidents such as the one I have referred to. I shall not mention the channel tunnel—although others may—as the Select Committee will take evidence on the matter. Such circumstances could arise at any time, and the workers should have the appropriate security and protection. The Minister agrees with that in principle, but the position is indeterminate. New clause 1 would provide the clarity that we need. People who decline to work in dangerous conditions should be protected. The Government should accept the new clause, or explain why not.

Mr. Wallace: My speech follows the remarks of the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton)—the distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment—who expressed misgivings about clause 7. The speeches of the hon. Members for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) and for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) showed that hon. Members on both sides of the House feel that clause 7—the effects of which the new clause tries to mitigate—is serious, as it goes to the heart of individual rights. When I examined the Bill before it went into Committee, my initial reaction was that it was not worth trying to amend it, as that would give it some respectability. I considered it fundamentally unjust and unfair. However, some effort must be made to mitigate its effect.
Questions of health and safety dominated our Committee debates, and I believe that new clauses 1 and 4 and the amendments of the hon. Member for St. Helens, North have tried to address the matter. Without some mitigation, we have what is tantamount to a victimisers' charter. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West drew some parallels with first world war generals in the way that clause 7 is drafted.
The scenes that I fear are more reminiscent of the second world war. One can imagine an unscrupulous employer faced with unofficial action saying, "I shall select five workers at random each week and dismiss them unless you go back to work." The Bill opens up such opportunities to unscrupulous employers.
7 pm
The Minister has been generous in giving way, but he has not shown that he has grasped our argument. I believe that he genuinely wants improvements to be made in health and safety, but he did not say anything to suggest that he would take action to give substance to that desire. He seemed also to think that we were talking about defining what is and what is not an industrial dispute. If that were so, one could imagine a tribunal having to decide whether an industrial dispute was taking place on matters quite unrelated to health and safety. That may well happen, but we are talking about cases in which it is beyond doubt that an industrial dispute has been occasioned by the fact that employees are no longer prepared to stand for circumstances that they believe put their health and safety at risk.
We are not talking about one individual who—to use the Minister's words—simply refuses to do something because a health and safety issue has arisen; we are talking about circumstances in which a group of employees in a workplace have been becoming more and more frustrated over a period of weeks, or perhaps months, with what they regard as their employer's failure to observe health and safety regulations. One incident may spark off that collective action. That is the sort of action that Opposition Members and, I think, the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel), are trying to address. We are talking about employees using collective action to pressurise their employer to come up to scratch and provide decent safe conditions in the workplace.
The Minister argued that the provision might open up a can of worms—a large loophole. With respect, he does not seem to have considered in detail the terms of new clause 1, which demands that the employee has
a genuine and reasonable belief


that the employer was acting in breach of his statutory duty. Clearly, if a spurious belief were used to try to justify unofficial action, that would not be covered by the new clause, as the test that it involves is a demanding one.
The Minister also said that the new clause had a sting in its tale because the words
other matters connected with the terms and conditions of the employees of the employer
Could refer to so many other matters. But that phrase does not stand on its own. The new clause refers to a breach or perceived breach of statutory duty with regard to terms and conditions of employment. We are not, therefore, talking about any other matter. The definition is a narrow one. If the Minister wishes to give substance to his oft-repeated claim to be genuinely interested in health and safety, he should accept that this is one very narrow area and that those who participate in unofficial industrial action from the best motives connected with their own health and safety should not be subjected to possible victimisation by an unscrupulous employer.

Mr. Cryer: I shall he brief, because I know that we have a number of other subjects to cover.
New clause 1 has extremely modest aims and ambitions and any reasonable Government would accept it, but I shall speak principally in support of new clauses 7 and 8, which concern the right of workers to call in a health and safety inspector if they believe that safety standards are being jeopardised and to obtain that inspector's approval of the safety standards of the operation before the work recommences. That is an eminently reasonable request, as any serious and objective study would recognise.
If I said that 413 people had been killed in nine years as a result of terrorist outrages, the House would be crowded, there would be expressions of horror and the Government would be agreeing to introduce legislation to prevent a recurrence. But 413 people in the mines and quarries industry died between 1979 and 1988. Each year, accidents take their toll of life and limb, and several thousand people are seriously injured. If workers had the right to question safety standards and to take action if they thought that those standards were being prejudiced, many of those fatalities would have been avoided.
Let me give an example. Scotch derrick cranes have been used extensively in quarries. They have fixed jibs. The Health and Safety Executive sent round a note saying that, if the pull holding the drum was made of cast iron, it should be replaced by a steel pull, because cast iron breaks. At Hungergantick quarry, the pulls were not replaced as had been recommended. The inspector from an insurance company could not tell the difference between steel and cast iron. One fateful morning, two workers got into the bucket and were lowered halfway down a quarry face. The pull broke, they plunged to the bottom and both were killed. Perhaps the workers would not have known about the difference between steel and cast iron, but they probably would.
The crane was not well maintained. In works operations, people are always pressing maintenance men to do odd jobs and get things working. If the workers had had the right outlined in the new clauses, it is likely that that Scotch derrick crane would have been properly maintained, according to the requirement that the HSE had circulated to employers. Accidents of that sort could be avoided. We should realise that people who operate cranes or other dangerous machinery and who are lowered

halfway down a quarry face or into the bowels of a mine in the course of their duties will have safety at the forefront of their minds, because they are the people who will be imperilled most if there are hazards at work.
The Government are obsessed with trade unions, and the Bill contains many provisions dealing with balloting. But every year, bar exceptional years, we lose more working days as a result of industrial injury than from strike action. That being so, why do not the Government do something about the daily toll taken on life and limb and reduce the number of days lost through industrial injury?
I should like to draw the House's attention to some peculiarities and to emphasise the fact that new clauses 7 and 8 might do something to hurry up the production of clearer standards. For many years, there have been discrepancies between the lifting of heavy weights regulations in the wool textile industry and in agriculture. For agricultural workers, the limit is 175 lb but for textile workers it is only 120 lb. That is absurd. Agricultural workers cannot necessarily lift heavier weights than textile workers, but that is the implication that the regulations carry. Other workers have to lift more reasonable weights.
In 1976, the then chairman of the Health and Safety Commission assured me that the commission would be producing guidance on manual handling. That guidance is still awaited. If workers who daily have to lift heavy castings off a production line had the power to question safety standards and seek the assistance of health and safety inspectors, we might get some sense out of the arrangements and improve the regulations—and there are not many—that have been crying out for reform for many years.
I should like to give the Minister some figures. In the nine months commencing 1 April in the year 1986–87, almost 30,000 people were off work for three or more days because of back injuries. For the same period in 1987–88, the figure was 30,002 and in 1988–89 it was 29,783. If we take an average full year, the figure for 1979 was 44,000; for 1980 it was 37,000; for 1981 it was 74,000; and for 1982 it was 66,000. I stress that I am talking about thousands of people being affected by serious injury.
If we are serious about health and safety at work, we should give people the right to plead in an industrial tribunal that the reason for their course of action was the lack of decent health and safety standards. However, I would go further than that. I would give people the right to say, "We believe that these health and safety standards are not safe and we should like to call in a health and safety inspector to ascertain whether or not they are safe." Most decent employers would endorse that because most decent employers want proper standards of health and safety at work because they know that poor standards lead to all sorts of problems such as bad industrial relations and insurance companies wanting information when claims are made. It is a nightmare when serious industrial injuries occur.
Therefore, I urge the Minister seriously to consider the new clauses and, even if he cannot accept them now, to have a word with his colleagues to ensure that amendments to their effect are tabled in another place.

Mr. Nellist: Unusual though this may seem, I fully agree with the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), not only that this is an odious Bill, but that clause 7, which the


Opposition amendments and new clauses seek to amend, is probably the worst aspect. That is why, during this Report stage, I an) restricting my comments to this matter although I am no stranger to the Committee stages of the Employment Acts that the House has considered in past years.
The Bill is anti-working-class and anti-trade-union. It is designed to restrict the ability of trade unions to do the job that they were set up to do, which is to defend the rights and working conditions of their members and, through them, of their members' families.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that the new clauses represent the minimum. It was wrong of the Minister to try to dismiss them as unworthy of consideration. I repeat that they represent the minimum that the House should accept on this matter.
I should have preferred the House to debate stronger moves tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South seemed about to suggest that workers should have a legal right to stop unsafe jobs without having to worry about whether they were taking unofficial or official action and about whether they could or could not use an industrial tribunal. I believe that the legal right to stop an unsafe or dangerous job should be enshrined in our legislation but, unfortunately, that is not the road down which we are travelling.
I also wish that we were talking about the mandatory use of prison sentences for employers or directors who are found to have been grossly negligent after a death or serious injury has occurred. I raised those points with the Prime Minister last Thursday but characteristically, she ignored them. As a result, 40 of my hon. Friends and I have tabled our points in early-day motion 969.
I rise to speak on this group of amendments and new clauses especially because of the renewed interest in health and safety in recent days following the tragic death 10 days ago of Billy Cartman at the channel tunnel site. That death and that site encapsulate much of what is wrong with this country's health and safety legislation, especially in relation to construction sites. It is not only I who think that—the Health and Safety Executive has estimated that working on the channel tunnel is three times more dangerous even than working on a building site, and building sites are bad enough.
The House and working people outside the House rightly get angry when a Piper Alpha, a Zeebrugge or a King's Cross occurs. We rightly feel anger about the tragic and useless waste of life in those major incidents and accidents. Yet the same number of people—about 160—are killed every year in the construction industry, but because the loss of life is diffuse, spread over the year and not concentrated in one incident, if does not attract the same attention.
Therefore, I make no apology for speaking in these terms. It is not as though I have previously been accused of shroud-waving in the House. That is why I say that perhaps the only good that can come from useless and tragic accidents, such as the recent accident at the channel tunnel site, is that the minds of the people who should be in a position to do something about that—the legislators in this place—are concentrated wonderfully, albeit briefly
7.15 pm
There have already been six deaths on our side of the channel tunnel and three on the other side. As I said last Thursday, that is almost a man per mile. Like others outside the House, especially those who have to work on the channel tunnel, I believe that the workers there are being asked to work far too fast and far too hard because of the escalating cost of the project. The contractors have received warnings in the past, but it took that sixth death before the Secretary of State for Employment called in the senior management of Transmanche Link.
I tabled a written question a few days ago about the outcome of that meeting with Jack Lemley, the chief executive of TML. The Minister on the Treasury Bench now, the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), answered on behalf of the Secretary of State that Jack Lemley had assured the Secretary of State
that the highest priority would be given to ensuring the health and safety of workers employed on the construction of the channel tunnel".
That answer does not sit easy with other reports. I could quote interviews reported in Militant with channel tunnel workers who do not wish to be named, but instead I will quote from a newspaper which is such that, I hope, even Conservative Members will not accuse me of choosing partial sources of information. I refer to The Independent of Wednesday 9 May. The workers interviewed by that newspaper refused to give their names precisely because of the clauses that we are debating and the fear that they might be dismissed for raising such points. The Independent reported workers as saying:
'''It's push, push, push all the time.'
Staff allege that: locomotives used in construction were regularly derailed; fires underground often went unreported; visibility in many areas was dangerously low; carbon dioxide fumes often rose above safe levels; injured men, including workers with broken legs, were left untreated at the tunnel face until the shift ended and workers who complained about lack of safety were threatened with disciplinary action or demoted to lower-paid work.
One locomotive driver who refused to drive over a section of track which he felt would derail his train was sent out of the marine tunnel south and restricted to working in the service tunnel. 'You're not allowed to complain. If you complain, you're out. It's like being in a military camp, you do what you're told,' he said.
That is the sort of atmosphere that has been engendered in some construction projects, especially in the south-east where, because of the pressure of escalating costs and profit margins being ever tighter, the work is push, push, push. That is the atmosphere that the new clauses seek to address. They seek to give workers a safety net so that they can escape the sword of Damocles hanging about them and the fear that they can be dismissed for having taken what can be described as "unofficial action" if they complain about health and safety matters.
Notwithstanding what the Minister has said, I have spoken to people who have campaigned both at the channel tunnel and elsewhere, such as in my own region of the midlands, and know workers who are afraid to put their heads above the parapet. One reason is that there are people and firms in the construction industry who are heavily involved in and are financing bodies such as the Economic League, which keep lists of workers who complain. Then, when they are dismissed—usually on the pretext of being late for work or for some other reason unconnected with health and safety matters—they are unable to get another job.
I shall limit my remarks because other hon. Members wish to speak and other issues need to be raised before we complete our consideration of the Bill today. It is no good the Minister saying that there are mechanisms such as fines to deal with breaches of health and safety rules. The five TML companies have been fined a maximum of £10,000 each for one death which occurred last February and were previously each fined £1,700. That does not concentrate the minds of directors of companies which are making millions of pounds of profit, but a prison sentence of between six and 24 months, if not longer, would certainly do so. The prospect of a prison sentence at the end of their tunnel if gross negligence was proved might lead directors to take their jobs more seriously and concentrate their minds on health and safety matters.
The Minister and other Conservative Members have said that the aim of their provisions is to limit unofficial action. I warn the Minister that such is the mood among many construction and other workers in dangerous jobs that I can foresee a time—it may well be this year—when there will be a one-day strike about health and safety issues on projects such as the channel tunnel. It may well be an unofficial strike—I do not think that workers will worry about that if so many of them take part, and they will certainly have the widespread support of other workers in other trade unions around the country.
The Minister has the chance today to prevent such things from happening. He should accept the minimal demands of my hon. Friends and our new clauses. If he does not, that will be on his conscience. He will know that he could have done something today to prevent the loss of life and limb and to avert the need for action, official or unofficial, in protest at the carnage occurring in industry today.

Dr. Kim Howells: I wished to make many points in the debate tonight, but I shall not make them all because there are restrictions on time, which I understand.
I wish to take up the Minister on what I consider to be some bland statements that he made about the way in which industrial law as it stands will enable people to take cases to industrial tribunals. Like many people—on both sides of the House, I am sure—I come from industry. I know that the nuances, subtleties and interpretations of which he spoke earlier are so much hogwash. The day-to-day basis of most people's experience in industry is different. In my experience, when people try to defend themselves before industrial tribunals, the charge on which they have been dismssed from work is never a refusal to do a job because it is dangerous. The major charge is always different. The full force of the empoloyers' argument is always spent on undermining the employee's case that he or she did not wish to go into a dangerous place.
Health and safety has dogged industrial relations ever since industrial relations began. In industry we are often working on the frontiers of technology. Changes may occur which simply cannot be legislated for in a general way as the Bill attempts to do. I remember when roof bolting was introduced into pits. Men would say, "Those roof bolts are not safe." The employer believed that they were safe and time and again they would argue that experience in America showed that roof bolting was perfectly safe. I have no doubt that in many geological circumstances that is true. But to men venturing into dangerous areas of mines who were used to working under

steel arches the sight of a coal face or area of a mine supported only by roof bolting militated against everything that they understood about mining safety.
When men refused to go into such areas, they were threatened with dismissal. That happened on many occasions. I know for a fact that that was used after the miners' strike as a means of getting rid of undesirable teams, as they were considered by management, in an era of industrial relations when fear stalked many pits and there was no sense of self-confidence about industrial relations.
The other extreme is areas where the dangers do not seem great, such as a large office where there may be people using computer visual display units. We are only now beginning to understand the effect on health and safety of working on VDUs. If people walk out of an office saying that they do not believe that their work is safe in the long term, who is to rule in favour of one party or another? Under the Bill it would constitute an unofficial action, a walk out, rag out, call it what one will.
Who is to say to workers in the nuclear industry, after the findings of the Gardiner report are published, that they must go into an area about which they harbour great fears even though they worked there previously? At the innovative edge of technology there will be many problems that the Bill does not address. There is no room for ambiguity or vague promises of interpretation or subtleties. Health and safety provision must be included in a way that people can understand. It must be simple enough for both employers and employees to understand. Employees must have confidence in the legislation. If not, the trade unions will lose another function—the policing of their own work forces. There will be a degree of anarchy in industry which neither employers nor trade unions want. I fear that the Government do not understand that point. We shall end up with worse industrial relations and health and safety than we have now.

Mr. Eggar: We have had a useful debate and I shall try to respond briefly to as many as possible of the points that have been raised.
I fully understand the anxieties of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel). We cannot take employees' health and safety seriously enough. As I said in my opening remarks, that is common ground on both sides of the House. I certainly share my hon. Friend's wish that trade unions should do all that they can to resolve industrial disputes and get their members back to work. Trade unions should always have that objective in mind.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that employers should seek advice from the Health and Safety Executive whenever it may be helpful. In our view, his amendments would not achieve those common objectives, but we are prepared to consider whether the proposed words for the union's repudiation statement are the best and most apt in all circumstances. I know that that has been a matter of concern to him both on Second Reading and in Committee, and I assure him that we shall not close our minds on that issue.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) postulated an example of an industrial dispute. I am somewhat wary of following up such examples, because each case must be decided by an industrial tribunal. He postulated an example of a long-term health and safety worry, as did the hon. Member for Pontypridd


(Dr. Howells). If employees are worried about either imminent or long-term health and safety issues, they are always free to call in an inspector. As I said earlier, that can be done on a confidential basis if that is appropriate.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has had a long-running interest in health and safety regulations with regard to manual handling. We hope that all European Community member states will shortly agree unanimously a directive on manual handling. He will be interested to know that much of that directive is based on a consultative document issued by the Health and Safety Commission.
The hon. Members for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) and for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) slightly misconstrued what we have said. We have never said that employees who take unofficial industrial action are protected against selective dismissal. The issue is whether there is any industrial action at all. If not—and we say that there is no industrial action where employees stop work because of fears for their safety—those dismissed have the right to complain of unfair dismissal. Their position will be the same as before the Bill.
In response to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), let me say that section 36 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 provides for industrial managers and directors to be prosecuted for breaches of health and safety. Indeed, in certain circumstances, that Act allows for imprisonment. It is not correct to say that that section has never been applied. A company director was successfully prosecuted for manslaughter following the death of an employee in May 1988. He received a suspended prison term of two years.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment, suggested that it might be appropriate to explore the root of an avoidance of doubt provision. We considered that in some detail, but we came to the conclusion that the present position was preferable. It is not something that we have simply overlooked. We have explored that possibility.
The hon. Members for Stretford and for Coventry, South-East asked about the situation on the channel tunnel. We are unaware of any industrial action about health and safety issues on the channel tunnel site. Although there is widespread anxiety about health and safety on the channel tunnel site, the precise area covered by the Bill has not arisen in that context. Rather than choosing his newspaper, Militant, the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East quoted from The Independent. I shall quote from The Independent on Sunday of 13 May, which quoted a senior TGWU shop steward as saying:
The Channel tunnel site is well disciplined with an excellent industrial relations team and there is no evidence of production being put before safety.

Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Eggar: I will not give way. I gave way earlier to the hon. Gentleman.
We have had a useful debate on what is essentially a technical matter. The Government are every bit as committed to maintaining and improving health and safety at work as the Opposition. We are convinced that clause 7 does nothing to undermine the excellent health

and safety record that the country has achieved as a result of the bipartisan policy following the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Although this may be a technical issue for the Government, it is a matter of life and death for the people whom my hon. Friends and I and, indeed, Tory Members represent.
Whereas the Minister uses legalistic sophistry to argue whether action is industrial action, we are anxious that people should have a legitimate opportunity to withdraw their labour and protest in that form if their lives are threatened, for example, on the channel tunnel site. If the Minister accepts that they will be prevented from doing so by the provisions of the Bill, he fails to understand how dangerous working conditions are in the tunnel.
The Minister believes that there is something to be undermined in our wonderful health and safety structures. I remind him that his Government are underfunding the Health and Safety Executive to the extent that it is having to make cuts. They have consistently run down the executive so that it is unable to do the job that Parliament asks of it.

Mr. Eggar: That is a disgraceful comment.

Mr. Lloyd: I invite the Minister to have a debate on health and safety at any time in the House. We shall be delighted to put the Government on the spot.

Mr. Eggar: rose——

Mr. Lloyd: The Minister will understand why I do not give way. He has had his say.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) was right in his comment about the construction industry. It has a terrible record. If the Minister believes that the position is satisfactory, and if his only defence is that one employer was given a suspended prison sentence, putting that forward as evidence that the law is applied, he does not understand that people are being seriously injured and killed at work. We will do everything that we can to prevent that.
As my hon. Friends have pointed out, we have tabled minimal new clauses and amendments to give the narrowest of protections to people at work. The fact that the Government are not prepared to accept even those minimal demands shows that they do not care about health and safety. For that reason, we shall vote for the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 139, Noes 176.

Division No. 214]
[7.33 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Allen, Graham
Buchan, Norman


Anderson, Donald
Buckley, George J.


Armstrong, Hilary
Caborn, Richard


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Callaghan, Jim


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Battle, John
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Beckett, Margaret
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clay, Bob


Bermingham, Gerald
Cohen, Harry


Bidwell, Sydney
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Blair, Tony
Corbett, Robin


Boateng, Paul
Corbyn, Jeremy


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Cryer, Bob


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Cummings, John






Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dixon, Don
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Doran, Frank
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Martlew, Eric


Eadie, Alexander
Maxton, John


Eastham, Ken
Meale, Alan


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morley, Elliot


Fisher, Mark
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mowlam, Marjorie


Foster, Derek
Murphy, Paul


Foulkes, George
Nellist, Dave


Fyfe, Maria
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Galloway, George
O'Brien, William


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
O'Neill, Martin


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Golding, Mrs Llin
Patchett, Terry


Gould, Bryan
Pike, Peter L.


Graham, Thomas
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Primarolo, Dawn


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Grocott, Bruce
Redmond, Martin


Haynes, Frank
Richardson, Jo


Henderson, Doug
Robertson, George


Hinchliffe, David
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Rogers, Allan


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Ruddock, Joan


Home Robertson, John
Salmond, Alex


Howells, Geraint
Sheerman, Barry


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Short, Clare


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Skinner, Dennis


Illsley, Eric
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Ingram, Adam
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Janner, Greville
Snape, Peter


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Soley, Clive


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Turner, Dennis


Leighton, Ron
Wallace, James


Lewis, Terry
Walley, Joan


Litherland, Robert
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


McAllion, John
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


McAvoy, Thomas
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McFall, John
Winnick, David


McKelvey, William
Wray, Jimmy


McLeish, Henry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


McWilliam, John



Madden, Max
Tellers for the Ayes:


Madel, David
Mr. Allan McKay and Mr. Frank Haynes.


Mahon, Mrs Alice



NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Budgen, Nicholas


Alexander, Richard
Burns, Simon


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Butler, Chris


Amos, Alan
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Arbuthnot, James
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Carttiss, Michael


Atkins, Robert
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Atkinson, David
Chapman, Sydney


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Chope, Christopher


Baldry, Tony
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Benyon, W.
Conway, Derek


Bevan, David Gilroy
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Curry, David


Body, Sir Richard
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Boswell, Tim
Day, Stephen


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bowis, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Dover, Den


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dunn, Bob


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Durant, Tony





Eggar, Tim
Mellor, David


Evennett, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fallon, Michael
Miller, Sir Hal


Farr, Sir John
Mills, Iain


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Miscampbell, Norman


Fishburn, John Dudley
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Forman, Nigel
Moate, Roger


Fox, Sir Marcus
Monro, Sir Hector


Franks, Cecil
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Freeman, Roger
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Gardiner, George
Morrison, Sir Charles


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Moss, Malcolm


Gill, Christopher
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Neubert, Michael


Goodlad, Alastair
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Nicholls, Patrick


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Gow, Ian
Norris, Steve


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Ground, Patrick
Patnick, Irvine


Hague, William
Pawsey, James


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hanley, Jeremy
Portillo, Michael


Hannam, John
Powell, William (Corby)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Raffan, Keith


Harris, David
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hawkins, Christopher
Redwood, John


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hayward, Robert
Rhodes James, Robert


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Riddick, Graham


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Rost, Peter


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rowe, Andrew


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Ryder, Richard


Hunter, Andrew
Sackville, Hon Tom


Irvine, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Irving, Sir Charles
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jack, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jackson, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Janman, Tim
Shelton, Sir William


Jessel, Toby
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Key, Robert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Kilfedder, James
Soames, Hon Nicholas


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Speed, Keith


Kirkhope, Timothy
Stanbrook, Ivor


Knapman, Roger
Steen, Anthony


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Stevens, Lewis


Knowles, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Knox, David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Latham, Michael
Sumberg, David


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lilley, Peter
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Thurnham, Peter


Lord, Michael
Tracey, Richard


McCrindle, Robert
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Maclean, David
Watts, John


Malins, Humfrey
Widdecombe, Ann


Mans, Keith
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)



Maude, Hon Francis
Tellers for the Noes


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Timothy Wood.


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 2

REFUSAL OF EMPLOYMENT ON GROUNDS RELATED TO PREVIOUS TRADE UNION ACTIVITIES

'It shall be unlawful to refuse a person employment because of his trade union activities in any previous employment.'.—[Mr. Tony Lloyd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second Time.—[Mr. Tony Lloyd.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to consider the following: new clause 3—Refusal of employment to person on register kept by organisation compiling information about suitability of individuals for employment—
'Where there is an arrangement or practice under which an employer will not offer employment to a person whose name is on a register kept by an organisation which compiles information about people in connection with their suitability for employment and that information includes information about a person's trade union activity, then a person who is refused employment in pursuance of that arrangement or practice, shall be held to have been refused employment by reason of his trade union activities.'.

Amendment No. 20, in clause 1, page 1, line 12 at end add—
'(c) because without his knowledge his name has been supplied to his prospective employer by a third party from an unpublished or secret register'.

Amendment No. 21, in page 2, line 23, at end add—
'(e) offers, and then subsequently withdraws the offer of employment without giving a satisfactory explanation for the withdrawal of the offer of employment.'.

Amendment No. 22, in clause 2, page 2, line 40 at end add—
'(c) because without his knowledge his name has been supplied to the agency by a third party from an unpublished or secret register.'.

Mr. John P. Smith: It gives me great pleasure to speak to the new clauses and amendments, not least because they are good additions to what is not a constructive or good Bill for the current needs of our industrial relations. In the main, the new clauses are designed to outlaw the unacceptable practice adopted by British employers of blacklisting genuine and ordinary trade unionists. They are also a good test of the Government's sincerity when they claim equity and balance. Earlier in the debate a Conservative Member spoke about the need for a sense of balance.
Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill seek to make it unlawful to discriminate against a potential employee whether or not he is a member of a trade union. Clause 2 states that, if an employment agency puts out an advertisement for a worker which says that the person appointed should be a member of a trade union, and if that person is subsequently refused employment, it can be deemed that he was refused employment because he refused to join or was not a member of a trade union.
In Committee, we argued that a distinction should be made between trade union membership and trade union activity. The Government repeatedly said that there was no need to do that because the two things were one and the same. We are again asking the Government to make that distinction and to ensure that quite sinister organisations, especially the Economic League, will not be at liberty to provide information about potential employees. Such information invariably includes details of trade union activity.
The Government see nothing wrong or contradictory in allowing the secret practices of that secret organisation to continue. In Committee we witnessed for the first time Ministers forcefully defending that organisation and its activities. I am sure that many of my colleagues will agree that that is disgraceful, because anybody who is aware of what that organisation does could not possibly support it in an open society.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a number of occasions over recent years, people from west Cumberland have come to my surgery and my home to complain that they have been blacklisted by local employers and contracting organisations—not only in west Cumberland, but on the Sellafield site. It is a disturbing development. Ministers must not look lightly on these serious matters. We need legislative reform because they are an invasion of our constituents' civil liberties. Ministers must not casually brush it aside.

Mr. Smith: I intend to refer to some of the practices of the Economic League that have resulted not only in people being blacklisted and therefore unable to obtain work, but in innocent people being blacklisted. Wrong information has been passed on about people and, consequently, they have been refused employment. We might never know the numbers involved, because the information is secret, but they could run into thousands or even tens of thousands. Ordinary working people and ordinary, respectable trade unionists involved in legitimate trade union activities, have had their lives ruined because the practices of the Economic League have prevented them from obtaining gainful employment.
Hon. Members may not be familiar with the practices of the Economic League. After all, for almost 60 years its work was conducted in secret. The league contacted members of the Committee and set out, in part, what it considers to be its role in the recruitment of employees. It said:
The existence of revolutionary organisations whose aim is to damage companies by fermenting unrest is well proven. Revolutionary organisations conceal their identity behind fronts and they use every artifice and method to achieve their aims. Therefore employers have a right, even a duty, to protect the interests of their companies, shareholders and employees alike. They need access to an information service that can help them to identify people who, by their membership or support of revolutionary bodies, can be expected to pose a threat to good relations in the company. The League supplies this information.
There is one problem with that. The information that the league provides—or at least, its interpretation of it—is quite different from reality. Fortunately, some investigative journalism—in particular, the Granada "World in Action" programme—has exposed the sinister activities of the league, as have books such as the "The Economic League—The Silent McCarthyism" by Mark Hollingsworth and Charles Tremayne. They have exposed what the league is up to.
The league includes in its list of revolutionary organisations Christian Aid, Oxfam, War on Want, Greenpeace, the Anti-Apartheid Movement, trade unions and one of the most popular political parties, the Labour party. Those activities, in which ordinary people engage, are revealed to employers to use as an excuse for refusing gainful employment. The paranoia revealed by such an organisation is a threat to open industrial relations, and the Government should support the new clause.

Mr. Graham Riddick: What evidence is in the book to suggest that employers have refused jobs to people who are members or supporters of the organisations that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned?

Mr. Smith: I do not have time to go through all the examples set out in the book. I shall simply choose a page at random and cite two examples. The first was exposed by "World in Action". Mr. Roy Turnbull, a labourer from


Newcastle upon Tyne, was for some considerable time refused employment because of his political activities. In fact, Mr. Turnbull belonged to no political party and he said in his testimony that he had never even bothered to vote.
Similarly, Mr. Ken Martin—another labourer from Newcastle upon Tyne—was blacklisted because of information about his political activities that was passed on by the Economic League. That information was false. It accused Mr. Martin of being a long-standing member of the Communist party. As a result, for some considerable time he could not obtain gainful employment. The information was not true because Mr. Martin was not, and never has been, a member of the Communist party. I could cite more examples, but I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the book or looks at the "World in Action" video.
The nature of the Economic League is revealed in the way that it gathers its information. It is known to use spies, private detectives, election nomination forms and press cuttings. That is unreliable, clandestine and sinister. The organisation is secretive and sinister in four ways. First, its existence remained a secret for many, many years. Indeed, its existence was denied only recently. Secondly, the organisations and companies affiliated to the Economic League were also secret until recent exposures. I am glad to say that many reputable companies which were previously affiliated have now broken their association because they have recognised the mood of the people of the country—something which the Government, if they do not support the new clause, will fail to do.
Thirdly, the organisation is secret and it keeps its information secret. Indeed, it refuses to put its information on computer but instead keeps manual records that do not come under the Data Protection Act. That is worrying in this day and age and it is another sign of the secret activity of that organisation. Finally, the organisation is secret because the information that it passes to employers about potential employees is secret. In particular, those potential employees do not have access to that information. They do not know what has been said about them. Like the two people whom I cited earlier, they do not have an opportunity to defend themselves. That is disgraceful.
The Government have an opportunity tonight to accept the new clause and the other amendments that we are discussing that relate specifically to trade union activity. Indeed, they have a clear choice—a closed society with closed industrial relations where secretive and sinister organisations can interfere with the smooth running of the labour market in general and recruitment of suitable labour in particular; or an open society where people, especially trade unionists, know exactly what is being said about them behind closed doors. They can then engage in the legitimate trade union activity that we have experienced in Wales.
It was interesting to note that in the rising unemployment figures released today, Wales did not suffer as badly as other regions. We have had some success in inward investment because we have the highest density trade union membership in the country. Those ordinary trade unionists make a major contribution to the economic well-being of the country.

8 pm

Mr. David Winnick: I fully support the new clause. It is unacceptable that those actively involved in trade unions should be discriminated against when it comes to applying for employment. It is even more unacceptable that there should be an organisation such as the Economic League, the main function of which—the reason why it came into existence at the end of the first world war—it to draw up a list of those who, in the view of those who run the organisation, should not be taken on by companies.
The Ecomomic League is funded by a number of large companies. I am pleased to note that more recently, perhaps in the past two or three years and certainly since the television programme, the Economic League has not received the same amount of funding as previously. Nevertheless, it continues to receive quite a large chunk of money.
British United Industrialists, an organisation responsible for receiving funds from companies and passing them on to the Tory party, also acts as a paymaster for the Economic League. It may be of some interest that some 57 companies which subscribe financially to the Tory party also subscribe to the Economic League, so the link is clear.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Did my hon. Friend see the Government Whip laughing then?

Mr. Winnick: Yes. I am not surprised.
The Economic League engages in a number of undeniable habits which should be deplored. For example, officials infiltrate private, political and trade union meetings. They like to get their hands on the attendance lists and use them for their own purposes. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) made the point that they also indulge in making a note of those who nominate candidates for local and national elections. All that is for one purpose—to draw up the dossier and to use it for the purposes of discrimination when it comes to employment.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) asked where is the evidence of such discrimination. In the book already referred to, "The Economic League—The Silent McCarthyism", reference is made to Malvyn Barton, a loyal member of his local Conservative club for nearly 10 years. He was a rather reluctant member of a trade union, but for some reason he was branded a militant. His name appeared on the Economic League's list and, as a result, he has been penalised. He has been unemployed for the past six years and is a bitter man. He said:
I've always got impeccable references that could get me a job but being on a blacklist is like banging your head against a brick wall. My reputation is now in rags.
The Economic League has not refuted that there is such a dossier on that person.
Derek Ogg is an Edinburgh solicitor whose case should interest Conservative Members. He was chairman of his local Young Conservatives and stood as a Conservative party candidate in the regional and district council elections, but he was listed by the Economic League as an anarchist. The explanation was that he was associated with a magazine which had been on sale in a radical bookshop.
I do not deny that many—perhaps a large majority—or those on the list are active trade unionists and proud to be so—they are not like the two cases to which I have just


referred—but in a democratic society, is it wrong for an active trade unionist who takes pride in his trade union membership to want to recruit those who are not in a trade union? Of all the functions of a democratic society—all the things which are not allowed in a dictatorship, fascist or communist—why should that one be the subject of a list kept by a central organisation funded by companies so that the people listed can be penalised, often for years on end?
I wish to refer to two cases nearer home. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) is not necessarily considered the most revolutionary member of the Opposition. In the early 1940s, before he went to Ruskin college, my right hon. Friend was a worker and a shop steward in a factory. He was put on the list for no other reason than that he was an active trade unionist and proud of it.
Perhaps even nearer home is my own case. When I finished my Army national service, I went to work in a clerical capacity in engineering. I was an active trade unionist and regularly attended trade union meetings and the annual conference of my union. Two years ago, my union, honoured me with its highest award—it may not seem much to Conservative Members because there is no commercial involvement, but I am proud to be the holder of a gold medal from my union. As an active lay member of my union, I sought then to ensure that, wherever I worked, I would try to recruit non-unionists in engineering establishments into my union, and I make no apology for that. I was put on the London Engineering Employers Federation blacklist for no other reason than my trade union activities.
That was in the mid-1950s, but fortunately in the area where I was living at the time there was no unemployment problem. I could not get work in federated firms, so I went to non-federated firms and had no difficulty in getting employment there. Employers would probably have considered me a conscientious worker. Yet I could not work in any federated firms because I was on the blacklist, merely because I was an active trade unionist. That is a deplorable state of affairs, not because of my experience as such but because of all the other people who are subject to such action.
There seem to be links between the Economic League and the police and special branch. A former official of the Economic League, Richard Brett, who was featured on the television programme as having worked for the Economic League, became somewhat disillusioned. He said that, during his days as an official of the Economic League, he regularly gave talks to the local police on industrial subversion. There is an allegation—the Minister will not be able to respond to this, because it is more a matter for the Home Office—that the Economic League continues to receive information from the police as well as passing information to them. If that is true, it is a further reason why we should deplore the activities of that organisation. I hope that the Home Secretary will look into those allegations and, if they are true, ensure that such actions do not continue.
Fortunately, we live in a political democracy, in a free society, and the freedoms that we have built up are precious, certainly to Opposition Members. Those freedoms, those civil liberties, are seriously eroded when people are penalised simply because of their trade union work, and that is completely unacceptable.
If new clause 2 is not acceptable to the Government—I do not think that it will be—I only hope that, after the next general election, the Labour Government will look at all those aspects and take measures to make such discrimation unlawful. We should have done that before, but I hope that we shall do it next time. If the law is so changed, it will further help to strengthen the freedoms that we already have in Britain. New clause 2 should be enthusiastically supported.

Mr. Riddick: Many hysterical comments have been made, without evidence to back them up. We heard many accusations on Second Reading and I understand that there were one or two lively debates on the subject in Committee.
I have taken the trouble to talk to the Economic League and it has written to me, and I want to inject a touch of realism and accuracy into the debate. I begin by quoting the league's objectives:
The Economic League collects and analyses extremist papers, magazines, reports and leaflets of left and right alike. Where industries or companies are mentioned by name, we let them know. Where the threat is more general we bring it to wider public attention.
This is just one of the ways in which the League is supporting freedom, free enterprise and democracy against those who are working to destroy it.
We provide an industrial relations advisory service to industry and commerce, particularly aimed at countering politically motivated industrial unrest and the creation of more positive attitudes.
Its aims are clear.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman seeks to defend the league's activities. Does he believe that the information that the league retains on its files should be publicly available, so that people who suspect that information held on them is inaccurate may have the right to appeal?

Mr. Riddick: Yes, people who are the subject of information held by the Economic League should have the right to see it. The Economic League says that people have that very right. Anyone who believes that they appear on an Economic League blacklist can write in, and the league will reply, confirming whether or not it holds any information on them. That is what the Economic League claims. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) claims that he is on an Economic League list, but has he ever written to the organisation to ascertain whether that is the case?

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman cannot be serious when he makes that suggestion. He must think that people are very naive. I did not suggest that I am on an Economic League list—I may be, or I may not. I explained rather that I had been on a blacklist kept by an employers' organisation.

Mr. Riddick: The hon. Gentleman gave the impression that he is on an Economic League blacklist. I have to say that he was being a little misleading, but I accept now that he was not attempting to suggest that he was on a list kept by the Economic League. The fact remains that one of the league's raisons d'être is to identify industrial saboteurs and make information relating to them available to the companies that subscribe to its services. What is wrong with that?

Mr. Wallace: Last year, the newspaper Scotland on Sunday reported that the league was setting up a list on environmentalists. Do they come within the hon. Gentleman's definition of industrial saboteurs?

Mr. Riddick: It does not sound to me as though environmentalists should be included in that category, but I cannot be sure that there is any truth in the report to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Does he know whether there is any substance to that allegation?
A number of unsubstantiated claims about the league's activities have been made, and I shall refer to them later. Clearly, the Labour party wants to put the Economic League out of business, but the only people to benefit would be left-wing extremists who want to wreak industrial havoc in this country. Perhaps that is what Opposition Members want. If so, their amendments amount to a wreckers' charter.
Several Opposition Members suggested that the league is anti-union and discriminates against trade union members. The league vehemently denies that accusation. I quote from the brochures that the league sends to prospective clients—companies that have expressed an interest in the services that if offers:
The League is in favour of employees voluntarily joining a trade union, having it represent them and negotiate on their behalf. If the union and the company fail to agree, the League recognises the right of the union to call on its members to take industrial action, provided that they are properly consulted.
8.15 pm
Individuals named in various "World in Action" programmes claimed that they were listed by the Economic League because of their trade union activities, and were as a result refused jobs. I asked the league whether there was any truth in those accusations. Mr. Hardy, the director-general of the league, wrote to me on 9 May:
The League has no record on the individuals named in the programmes. Furthermore, none of the individuals named has ever either written to us to complain or commenced legal action against us. None of them has ever communicated with us about our alleged blacklisting of them.
I suggest that Opposition Members ask the people named in the "World in Action" reports to contact the Economic League, to establish whether that is true. If those individuals have not done so, or fail to do so, they can hardly go round making wild allegations about being on an Economic League blacklist. The House may be interested to know that the Broadcasting Complaints Commission found that Granada TV's "World in Action" programme
constituted unjust and unfair treatment of the League.
Do Opposition Members think it would be sensible for a company that employs, for example, a high percentage of Asian workers to employ also an individual having links with the National Front? Of course not. That is the kind of information that the league can provide.

Mr. Winnick: But it does not.

Mr. Riddick: What evidence does the hon. Gentleman have to support that accusation? He has none. He simply makes another wild allegation.

Mr. John P. Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is no way of knowing for certain whether the league holds information on a particular individual—because what it does, it does in secret?

Mr. Riddick: I repeat that anyone who believes that they are listed by the league should contact the organisation—[Laughter.] Opposition Members may laugh, but the league has made it clear that it is willing to allow Members of Parliament to visit its offices and inspect its files.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I can show the hon. Gentleman correspondence that I have received, as someone involved in the Anti-Blacklisting Campaign, from a gentleman who suspected that he was listed by the Economic League. I saw the league's reply, on its letterhead, and it requested him to give a great deal of information about himself—including his name, present addresses, past address, trade union membership, political activities, and so on—and to submit it together with a small fee. In other words, " Please blacklist yourself."

Mr. Riddick: Surely the hon. Lady would want the Economic League to make absolutely certain that the person requesting such information is really the same person appearing in its files—which clearly is of great importance.
Opposition Members claim that the league is trying to avoid the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984, yet the league itself says that it would have no difficulty in conforming to an extension of that Act to cover manual records. It claims that it would welcome such an extension. I quote again from the letter that I received from the league's director-general:
Our archives are open for inspection at any time by the Data Protection Registrar and our systems were fully inspected during 1989. The Data Protection Registrar gave us a clean bill of health.
That inspection related to information held on computer. However, the league has made it clear to me that it would be happy for the provisions of the Act to be extended to manual records. Its director-general adds:
In addition we would be happy to host an all-party deputation of Members of Parliament at our Archive Centre. They will then be able to see the system at work for themselves.
I suggest that Opposition Members take up that offer.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I shall be happy to do so. The league has only to write to me.

Mr. Riddick: Good. I am glad to hear that from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
The actions of the Government will probably diminish the role and the importance of the Economic League because only when the industrial situation is ripe for saboteurs are the services of such organisations necessary. The Government's trade union legislation has made it more difficult for people to subvert trade unions and industries, and I welcome that. It means that the work of the league is less in demand now than it was.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman has made an offer and I and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) will take him up on it and visit the league. He also mentioned what information it would make available to us. I think that he mentioned that we would be able to see the records, how information is recorded, what is recorded and how manual and computerised record systems work. Judging by what he has been told, can he say that all that will be made available to us as Members of Parliament?

Mr. Riddick: I cannot speak on behalf of the Economic League. I can only quote what is contained in this letter to me. It will be printed in Hansard tomorrow.
The hostility of many Labour Members of Parliament to the organisation, without any proof of wrongdoing, is a poor reflection on them because the league's purpose is to contribute towards upholding industrial peace. I suggest that the Labour party should subscribe to the league—rather than knocking it—and find out about the militants and the people who disrupt its ranks in such places as Liverpool, London and Birkenhead—of course we know the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has been deselected.
I shall happily vote against the amendments tabled by the Opposition.

Mrs. Fyfese: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak because, some time ago, an anti-blacklisting campaign was formed in the House and it now has a large number of members, including more than 70 Members of Parliament. It is pleasing to note that, in the recent past, the Opposition attacked blacklisting during debates on previous employment legislation and attempted to get the law changed, but they were opposed by the Government. I introduced an anti-blacklisting Bill, which was opposed by the Government. Here we are again tonight, with yet another Employment Bill, taking the opportunity to raise the issue once again and to try to further the democratic standards that we wish to preserve in this country. I am delighted to know that the Labour party has undertaken, in its policy review, to clear up the matter once and for all when Labour forms the next Government.
I am particularly pleased that the Select Committee on Employment will be investigating blacklisting in the near future.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) questioned whether there was any evidence that blacklisting took place. A member of my union, the Transport and General Workers, and an employee of Ford was blacklisted last year. Ford openly admitted—it has been in all the newspapers—that it subscribes to the Economic League and that it practises blacklisting. That admission comes from a major car manufacturing company.
The building workers' union, the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, is holding its annual conference soon; because it is so aware of the problems of its members in the construction industry, this will be a major topic for debate. According to the hon. Member for Colne Valley, everyone seems to be letting his imagination run riot.

Mr. Riddick: rose——

Mrs. Fyfe: Before I give way, I wish to cite the example of another building firm. Some of its papers came into my hands recently, and the show that the company blacklisted people who had never worked for it, and it did not do so on grounds of incompetence. I shall present that evidence to the Select Committee.

Mr. Riddick: The hon. Lady mentioned Ford. Is it not true that the motor car industry in this country has been blighted during the past few decades by industrial disruption? It has had a history of individuals actively disrupting it—for example, Red Robbo and the mole at Cowley. Such individuals have enormous power. In the

past they created tremendous problems for companies, and those problems spilled over to other employees. Surely Ford has a responsibility to its shareholders and its employees to ensure that industrial saboteurs are not employed.

Mrs. Fyfe: I shall come to the general principles of the issue in a moment, but one of the people the hon. Member for Colne Valley named—the so-called Red Robbo——

Mr. Riddick: Answer.

Mrs. Fyfe: I am answering right now, if the hon. Gentleman wants to listen to me. Red Robbo was sacked for no better reason than that he offered an alternative to the plan offered by the management at the time of a dispute several years ago. Notice how far back the hon. Member has to go to find something that he can begin to describe as subversive activity—which it certainly was not.
Thousands of people are on the Economic League's blacklist. The league organises in various parts of the country and has local lists. Presumably it has a nationwide list on its computer. No doubt my hon. Friend and I will ask about that when we visit them.
Do Conservative Members seriously believe that those people are all subversives and revolutionaries? If so, I do not know why the revolution has not already broken out, given the activities of the Government during the past 10 years. Tory Members are talking nonsense. We have been given the evidence of Mr. Richard Brett, who used to be a regional director of the Economic League, and who came to a meeting in the House of Commons organised by the anti-blacklisting campaign. He had fallen out with the league and was prepared to give evidence which will be presented to the Select Committee in due course. He said that, for the vast majority of the huge number of names in the records, the information recorded was inaccurate.
People are listed, they are prevented from getting jobs, but the information on them is not correct. How does that come about? It is due to the league's methods of blacklisting people. It picks up names and addresses from a wide range of left-wing and ultra left-wing newspapers, and other such sources, noting the names of people who are nominated for posts. However, if a senior official of that organisation is prepared to admit publicly that the records are inaccurate, the public have reason to worry.
Sometimes the league has got it right, and has listed someone accurately, but the information is irrelevant. For example, one of my constituents was on the "World in Action" list for no better reason than that she was an organiser for the anti-apartheid campaign. Most people would think that if she put that on a job application an employer might think that it was to her credit—I certainly would. I cannot imagine what employer could object, except perhaps the South African embassy or companies such as Outspan. It is not of interest to industry in general. Those are reasons for putting people on the blacklist.
Even if someone considers himself or herself a revolutionary and a danger to capitalism, Opposition Members realise—although Conservative Members do not—that many such people take themselves more seriously than their activities justify. We have a police force, special branch, MI5 and MI6 and if people are attempting to subvert the interests of the country it is their job to attend to such matters—[Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) points out, we know that some secret services have taken a strange view


of what is and what is not a subversive activity. A former leader of the Conservative party referred to the fact that some of MI6's activities were very strange and that it had odd notions of what constituted subversive activities.
The forces of the state are there to look after the interests of the state. When it comes to employers looking after their own interests, do not Conservative Members of Parliament realise that ordinary, hard-working, decent trade unionists do not want their job prospects to be wrecked and industry to be ruined by people who fancy themselves as some kind of latter-day Lenin? Trade unionists can tackle attempts to make something out of nothing. Ordinary trade unionists are the ones who have suffered the most from such activities. A shop steward who is trying to do a decent job for his members can come to the attention of an organisation such as the Economic League and be blacklisted as a revolutionary or a subversive.
8.30 pm
I have already referred to the fact that people can be invited to blacklist themselves. We have heard that the Economic League is prepared to allow us to examine its records. It believes that it would be a good idea if the law required both computer records and general records to come under the Data Protection Act 1984. Why, therefore, do the Government resist our arguments? I called precisely for such a measure two years ago when I introduced my Bill—that all the records of blacklisting agencies should be open to inspection and that people who had applied for a job and had been checked by a would-be employer should be able to find out what information was held on them. At long last we hear that the Government are prepared to allow that. I can only imagine that it is because they have come under pressure as a result of investigative journalism.
Apart from the Economic League, other organisations have blacklists. They prevent people from gaining employment for reasons wholly unconnected with their ability to do the job. They can be blacklisted for their beliefs, or for their suspected beliefs, or even because of the beliefs of their relatives or friends. They can be blacklisted on the basis of false information. People are tried secretly by unknown individuals who act as prosecutor, judge and jury. They have no opportunity to challenge and correct the false information, unless they choose to write and virtually blacklist themselves. If they had not come to the attention of a blacklisting agency before, they would certainly do so then.
It has been called McCarthyism. I have seen a letter from a man who says that it is worse than McCarthyism, for at least McCarthy was prepared to stand up in front of Congress and the Senate and justify his actions. These people are not prepared to justify their actions. All they do is to talk nonsense about secret revolutions breaking out everywhere in Britain. I hope that the House will throw out this nonsense.

Mr. Leighton: The Bill claims to give people the right to belong to a trade union. It did so belatedly. We heard a great deal about the right not to belong to a trade union. It was only towards the end of the gestation period that we heard anything about the right to belong to a trade union. It is a new right. Under our law, there has never been the right to belong to a trade union.
Since 1926, a printing firm, D. C. Thomson in Dundee, has operated the policy that anybody who wants to be employed by that firm must sign what is called "the document", stating that they are not a member of a trade union. If the right to belong to a trade union is to mean something, we have to ask how that right is to be enforced. If there is no mechanism to enforce the right to belong to a trade union, it will be a completely meaningless sham.
We have heard a great deal about the pre-entry closed shop and how dreadful it is. I do not intend to say a great deal about the Economic League. The Select Committee on Employment has launched an inquiry into recruitment practices. The Economic League is to give evidence to the Committee and I do not wish to prejudge what it will say. A number of other organisations are described as blacklisting organisations. They are engaged in pre-entry discrimination. Discrimination takes place before someone gets a job. It is not a question of an employee not being allowed to join a union; the discrimination takes place before a person even gets the job.
Blacklisting organisations provide the so-called information in secrecy and furtively to firms that then illegally—or what will be illegally—refuse employment. The purpose of a blacklisting organisation is to supply information secretly; then the firm will do something that will be illegal—it will refuse employment and break the law.
What does the Minister intend to do about it? If the Bill gives the right to employees to belong to a trade union but there is pre-entry discrimination, what will the Minister do if firms break the law? That would be wrong, repugnant, mischievous and evil. It must be combated, if we are serious about giving people the right to belong to a trade union.
We must be even-handed. The right to belong to a trade union has to be protected. People must also be given the right to be active in trade unions. It is all very well to give people the right to belong to trade unions, but what happens if they are active trade union members? An active trade union member may find that he is on a blacklist and that therefore he cannot find employment, so it does not seem to me that the right to belong to a trade union has any real meaning. I understand that in Committee my hon. Friends tabled an amendment that would have covered that possibility, but it was rejected by the Government. An explanation is needed.
We know, from all sorts of evidence, that some of these blacklisting organisations are shady and incompetent. We also know that many firms use them. The organisations are secret and furtive, and operate on the fringes of the law. We listened to the apologist or spokesperson for one of these organisations, the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick). Perhaps he will take back the message that, if such organisations were more open, there would not be so much objection to them.
Parliament has considered the matter before. In our modern society, a vast amount of information is available on all of us. According to the Data Protection Act, Parliament has said that we should be able to check what is on the record, but some organisations manage to find furtive ways to circumvent the law. They say that they have manual files. If they were more open about their activities, there might not be the same objection to them. I hope that the Minister will tell us what he thinks about that.
If blacklists deny employment, the so-called right to belong to a union is a sham. In a free society it cannot be right for people to be shut out of employment by the use of secret information. We criticise the secret police and the Securitate in eastern Europe because they kept blacklists and files on people and used informants. I have heard that some of the blacklisting organisations here infiltrate agents into anti-apartheid organisations and trade unions and compile information, rather like the Ceausescu secret police. If those organisations can deny people employment, that must be wrong, and if people being denied a livelihood cannot challenge that secret information, that must be a denial of natural justice.
I want to know what the Government intend to do about it. If they claim that they will give the right to belong to a trade union, perhaps we shall hear that in future it will be unlawful to keep and supply secret, inaccurate and incompetent information to firms which will then operate pre-entry discrimination. Perhaps the Minister will promise to ensure that they are brought under the Data Protection Act and that everything they do will have to be out in the open and that their lists will be published so that not only the employer but the individual—the Conservative party has often said that it has the interest of the individual at heart, and what could be more important to the individual than the denial of his livelihood?—will have access to it. Unless that is done, the so-called right to belong will be a sham. That is the litmus test of whether the Government will be even-handed and give the right to belong as well as the right not to belong. Unless something is done about it, that right will be an empty sham.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I hope that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) will reflect on his speech. If he looks back through history he will find that one of the great parliamentarians from his constituency was a man called Victor Grayson who is well remembered throughout the valley that the hon. Gentleman now represents in the House of Commons.
Victor Grayson was destroyed by the blacklist. That is how the British establishment dealt with that gentleman all those years ago. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know more about Victor Grayson, he need do no more than read the book about him written by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). He will learn much about the operation of those organisations that he has sought to defend in the Chamber tonight.
I shall certainly take up the offer that the hon. Gentleman made and go to meet those people, but I say to them in advance that we shall want many questions answered. We will want to know all kinds of information about their organisation which hitherto they have been totally unwilling to provide to journalists that have made contact with them. We shall want them to justify why they question people who apply for information about themselves, and why people are charged the princely sum of £10 to secure access to the personal information kept about them.
We shall also want to know how they can morally justify the compiling of information such as one would expect to find only in parts of eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union. In those countries and in other parts of the world the systems are being dismantled, and it is incongruous that we should allow such operations here in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Riddick: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has something of a reputation for instigating bogus smears on hon. Members. I recall the way in which he tried to smear my hon. Friends the Members for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates). I should point out that the portion of the letter that I read out specifically said that the Economic League would be happy for an all-party delegation to visit its premises. That was a sensible caveat to ensure that hon. Members such as the hon. Gentleman do not go on their own and abuse the hospitality of the Economic League. The most effective body of people to carry out such an investigation would be the Select Committee on Employment.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am perfectly prepared to accept the caveat that the hon. Gentleman introduced. If I and my hon. Friends have any difficulty in gaining access, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be willing to accompany us to ensure that the delegation has an all-party complexion.
I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) who, since her election to the House, has done so much in these matters. Her name stands out on the Labour Whip each week, drawing attention to meetings that she is convening. I know that she has played a prominent and important part in uncovering the activities of that organisation and drawing them to the attention of hon. Members and people throughout the country. I should also like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith), who made his maiden spech from the Dispatch Box this evening.
Finally, I turn to a particular issue—who should be blacklisted, if anyone? I want to draw attention to an incident at the Devonshire dockyard in Barrow in Furness in Cumbria. I was approached by a person within the county of Cumbria who drew my attention to the security arrangements in that dock. I should point out that the Devonshire dock is where they are to build the Trident submarine, one of Britain's most secure projects in terms of defence contracts. It demands the highest level of security. It is so secure and officially secret that Parliament cannot be officially informed even of the date of commissioning of the first Trident boat, so we are dealing with a highly sensitive subject.
When I asked the Secretary of State whether the Trident project was being carried out at the Devonshire dock in Barrow I received the reply: "Yes." Then I asked about security. The Minister replied:
Security at the Devonshire dock is the responsibility of Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Limited and is being maintained at a level appropriate to the nature of the work undertaken and the perceived threat.
I asked about the screening arrangements for people working in the dock and the security clearance for those already working there and received the reply:
It is not the policy of this or previous Administrations to release information on security clearance procedures."—[Official Report, 14 May 1990; Vol. 172, c. 826.]
Clearly they are extremely sensitive matters. One assumes that the level of security at the dock is extremely high.
One of the main contractors in the dock just happens to be a subscriber to the Economic League, a firm called McAlpine, one of Britain's premier construction companies. The firm was recently carrying out work not in the


main construction hall but within the dock area in the immediate vicinity of the main construction hall. When McAlpine is short of labour, and needs a specialist skill for a few days, it uses a local labour contractor to employ persons who have to have security clearance to come to the dock and do the work. I understand that on a number of occasions McAlpine has used a firm called Nicholas Labour Hire Ltd. of Preston. The potential employees on the books of that company need security clearance.
I have with me a form which shows that Nicholas Labour Hire Ltd. of Winckley square, Preston, told a person who was to work in the dock area—this relates to a particular occasion but I understand that it has happened on a number of occasions—and who had to clear security, that because of delays with security clearance, he should impersonate an employee of Nicholas Labour Hire Limited, a Mr. Mike Power. Mr. Power is the office manager of Nicholas Labour Hire Limited and I understand that he has security clearance for the dockyard.
Obviously, the contractor, McAlpine, will want to deny knowledge of these matters, as no doubt will Vickers shipyard security officials; they will say that they know nothing about these matters. Nicholas Labour Hire will probably want to blame everyone else, although it is party to this impersonation and deception which is breaching security in a dockyard in the United Kingdom in which the highest level of security manufacturing activity is taking place, aside perhaps from Sellafield and the Aldermaston complex in the south of England.
I want an inquiry to be conducted into this case. How is it that such large companies, one of which at least we know subscribes to the Economic League, can be party to a system by which people are required to impersonate others and breach security to gain access to their place of employment?
I want to know why firms such as McAlpine are willing to subscribe to organisations such as the Economic League as part of the exercise of blacklisting individuals who seek employment, while they themselves are engaged indirectly in breaching security by, if not condoning them certainly not finding out about and preventing, abuses of security on the scale that I have divulged to the House tonight.
I understand that in the dockyard in Barrow there is an inner security area. It was put to me that it would be impossible for people to breach that area, even though they might gain access, by way of security passes, to the main dock area. But I am told by other people in the dock that it possible to move from one security area even into the tighter security area.

Mr. Riddick: This is all irrelevant.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman may say that it is irrelevant. I believe that people in the construction industry—be they McAlpine, Nicholas Labour Hire Ltd. of Preston or Vickers of Barrow—who condone this sort of activity present a far greater threat to national security than ever some trade unionist did who perhaps happened to say the wrong word at the wrong place at a certain time, thereby doing irreparable damage to himself and his prospects of employment for the rest of his life, or perhaps someone who belonged to CND, who attended a rally and

whose presence was picked up on a video camera by some crummy official in some organisation that believes it has a right to monitor the activities of people.
We have our priorities wrong. I hope that when the inquiry that I have requested takes place—as it inevitably must take place, since a breach of security has occurred; I have the documentary evidence with me, for I hold in my hand the form that was requested and was filled in requiring a man to impersonate another man—it will prove who really threatens security in this country. I hope that it will address the real issues that confront us.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): Despite some of the remarks that have been made, this is one of those debates in which there is probably more agreement than might at first seem to be the case. At the outset, from the Government Bench, I welcome the hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) to the Opposition Front Bench. He will have found that a great benefit of speaking from that position is that at long last one has something on which to rest one's notes. Speaking for myself, one hardship of being a Back Bencher, having left the court room, is having to leave one's lectern behind. The hon. Gentleman will agree that it is nice to have a lectern again.
The hon. Gentleman came to the heart of the matter—his concern about the Economic League—but the clause and the amendments to it deal with a fundamental point in the Bill, and one which attracts acceptance from hon. Members in all parts of the House. I refer to the proposition that, when it comes to recruitment, the fact of trade union membership should be irrelevant. It must be said that that is not the position under the law as it stands, and that a change is to take place in that respect.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) was concerned that our conversion to the even-handed approach, if I may so put it, came somewhat late in the day, but that is not so. The Green Paper dealt specifically with the pre-entry closed shop, but once the proposals in the Green Paper were being taken forward and worked into a Bill, one saw all the implications and became aware of how to put the policy into practice. The hon. Gentleman will see that an even-handed approach has been adopted on the face of the Bill, as it should be.

Mr. Leighton: I am interested in the pre-entry aspect. If the Minister wishes to be even-handed, does he agree about the other side of the coin? There is pre-entry discrimination by blacklisting organisations if secret, furtive information is given by them to firms which, after the Bill becomes law, illegally discriminate against people who have previously been active in trade unions, and the individual cannot challenge the information. Does the Minister agree that that would be a breach of natural justice? That is pre-entry discrimination for being a trade union member. Does the Minister accept that?

Mr. Nicholls: I will come to that issue in more detail later in my remarks. I accept that we are here in the business of introducing a new criterion that employers will not be entitled to take into account when deciding whether or not to employ somebody. I refer to the fact of trade union membership. Be it the presence or absence of such membership, employers will not be entitled to take that into account. Whatever else we may disagree on, that is accepted by Members on both sides.
The hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan said that in Committee we had presented the case on the basis that activities and membership were one and the same thing, but I would not put that construction on it. We made the point that we were dealing essentially with the status of a person, be he a member of a trade union or not, rather than with his activities.
It is equally clear that the mere fact of membership carries with it certain incidental activities which are implicit. That matter was decided by the court as recently as this year, in Discount Tobacco and Confectionery Limited v. Armitage. If one reads that case in conjunction with the older case of Drew v. St. Edmondsbury borough council, it is clear that, although there may be the normal incidence of trade union activity, the organisation of industrial action would not form part of it. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was fair in keeping his remarks about that as short as he could, but he perhaps condensed matters rather more than I would have done.
The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan also felt that the Economic League had been defended by Ministers. Let me make it clear that, speaking for myself and for my right hon. arid hon. Friends, we never come to the Front Bench to defend the Economic League. It is for the Economic League to defend itself. If it is indulging in any illegal activity, that should be drawn to the attention of the relevant authorities. To say that I or my right hon. or hon. Friends would defend the work of the Economic League would be preposterous. The matter rests on particular knowledge. If any hon. Member has knowledge that the Economic League has acted illegally, that should be drawn to the attention of the police.

Mrs. Fyfe: Our point, which does not seem to be getting through, is that this secret McCarthyism should be made illegal.

9 pm

Mr. Nicholls: I understand the hon. Lady's objections and I promise that I will come to them.
The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan was fair in the way that he opened up his case. He felt that we were defending the Economic League per se, but we are not. However, I come now to the first point of difference between myself and the Opposition. It is a fair construction to say that they feel that it is undesirable and unfair, and should be made illegal, if an employer decides to use sources of information or tries to find out whether a potential employee has a history of industrial disruption. An employer may want to know whether that person is a well-known subversive.
I assure the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) that I shall come to the point about accuracy of information in a moment. She herself hinted that certain people are on the extreme of right and left—a view which is common ground between us. An employer's wanting to know merely whether a person was involved in industrial disruption should not be made illegal, but——

Mr. Leighton: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan might have liked to hear my "but", but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Leighton: If an employer knew that someone was going to be disruptive and destructive, he could dismiss

him. That employee would then go to an industrial tribunal and might prove his case. However, to have secret information to say that somebody was X, Y or Z when he was not and for that person to be unable to challenge that false information is a different matter.

Mr. Nicholls: This will be common ground between us. Yes, if the employer took somebody on and then found one week, two weeks or two years later that the person had a track record for industrial disruption, he could dismiss him. If the person had been employed for the qualifying period, the industrial tribunal could deal with the matter. However, it makes sense from an employer's point of view not to have to dismiss someone in those circumstances. It might make more sense to find out whether the person has a history of industrial disruption—before taking him on.

Mr. Winnick: Does the Minister accept that, for many employers, what he has just described would apply to a person who wanted to be employed by a firm and who was an active trade unionist who wished to recruit others who might not be in a union? In the eyes of many employers, that is a form of industrial subversion. Yet I believe that the practices in which I engaged were perfectly legitimate and right in a democratic society. If people did not want to be persuaded by me to join a trade union, so be it, but why should I or anyone else be prevented from joining a firm because I am an active trade unionist?

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman amplifies the point that he made earlier. It may assist the House if I come to that point in due course.
I was making the point that trying to find out not whether someone had been engaged in trade union activities or was a member of a trade union, but whether he had been indulging in something a great deal worse, is obviously a matter in which an employer might take a legitimate interest.
From what I have read in the newspapers about the Economic League, it is clear that some organisations which employ trade unionists have used that organisation. The mere fact that an employer goes to an organisation to find out whether someone has been guilty of industrial disruption should not automatically be made illegal.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) made several allegations of malpractices about which he knew. I hope that he will accept that those allegations are more the province of the Home Office than of the Department of Employment. He came to the crucial point when he said that, under the next Labour Government, he would seek certain changes in the law. I can give the hon. Gentleman some comfort now rather than leaving him to wait until his extreme old age. That change in the law is very much enshrined in clause 1.
Today, if an employer approached the Economic League or any other organisation and found that a person was indulging in trade union activities which were incidental to membership, he would be entitled to take that into account. After enactment of the Bill, however, that will no longer be the case—employers will no longer be able to obtain such information. I do not know whether that assurance is sufficient to make the hon. Gentleman cross the Floor, or vote Conservative, or both, but the change in the law that he expected to come in the clays of his grey-haired old age is already being made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) also mentioned the Economic League, of which


he clearly has some knowledge. He has corresponded with its members, given the House information, and made a certain offer. Again, I do not think that it is for me to pass comment, except to say—this leads me to the main point made by the hon. Member for Maryhill—that any information supplied by such organisations should obviously be accurate. I say that for a number of reasons, one of which may not appeal particularly to Opposition Members. If the organisation providing the information identifies the wrong John Smith, to pick a name at random, thus blackguarding the right John Smith, that will not do the organisation itself any good.
My hon. Friend suggested that people could write asking whether they were on the Economic League's list. If they were sufficiently left or right-wing, they might add, "PS—If not, why not?" The hon. Member for Maryhill and several of her hon. Friends asked, "What about the Data Protection Act?" Although I am sure that the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley were as accurate as he could make them, I could not say whether the Economic League favours an extension of the Act to cover manually held records. All that I can tell the hon. Lady is that whether the Act should be extended is a question for the Home Office rather than for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, although I appreciate that the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends welcomed the opportunity to return to the subject, which arose in Committee as well.

Mr. Leighton: The Minister is on to a good point. He will also appreciate the importance of information acquired for recruitment purposes. Does he agree that such information should be covered by the Data Protection Act, and will he take steps to ensure that it is? That might deal with the anxiety felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Nicholls: I cannot take a view on legislation that has not been introduced by a Department which, were it to do so, would in any case not be the Department in which I serve. The data protection issue is plainly dear to the hearts of Opposition Members, and they will doubtless wish to pursue it, but they cannot pursue it with the Department of Employment.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: What is the Minister offering the House? How does he intend to ensure that only accurate information is kept, without requiring the aggrieved individual to pay £10?

Mr. Nicholls: I am responding to the amendments that have been tabled to the clause.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have asked a simple question.

Mr. Nicholls: And I will give the hon. Gentleman a simple answer, although he may not find it satisfactory. It is not the business of the clause, or of the Bill, to devise a structure to ensure that the information given out by organisations is accurate. What the clause does—this should be said again, as it represents common ground—is ensure that it will no longer be regarded as legal for a potential employer to refuse a person employment on the ground of trade union membership.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: How will he do that?

Mr. Nicholls: I have given the hon. Gentleman my answer to his question. I warned him that he might not find it satisfactory.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-East asked about the sanctions. The details are set out in schedule 1. The tribunal can make an order, or a declaration, about the steps that should be taken to remedy the problem, and compensation can then be awarded.
The hon. Gentleman also said that he wanted the information to be made public. That takes us back to the point about accuracy. I am not sure how far the hon. Gentleman would want to take the matter—he might not wish all the information to be made public on each and every occasion—but I accept the arguments about the accuracy of the information.
Before I outline the concession that I intend to offer, I Will deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who asked whether anyone should ever be blacklisted. That is an interesting question, but it seems to me that there is some agreement among hon. Members on both sides that there are some things that employers ought to be able to take into account, and the intention to cause deliberate industrial disruption might be one of them. The Bill deals with trade union membership, which employers will no longer be able to take into account.
Grouped with new clause 2 is amendment No. 21, which would add to a list of criteria set out in the Bill for deciding what would amount to a refusal of employment. It is clearly right that we should be clear about what constitutes refusal of employment. The list is set out in clause 1(5), and the amendment proposes that an extra ground should be offered. The amendment refers to an employer who
offers, and then subsequently withdraws, the offer of employment without giving a satisfactory explanation for the withdrawal of the offer of employment.
The second part of that proposal would not assist Opposition Members in achieving their aim, because the subsection is intended to help us to determine whether there has been a refusal of employment. That matter should not be prejudged—it should be left to a tribunal. I cannot say whether the exact words in the amendment are satisfactory, as I have not yet had time to seek the view of parliamentary counsel, but the Government accept the principle behind it and we are prepared to bring forward a proposal to reflect that in the other place.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will there be an inquiry into what I have alleged today?

Mr. Nicholls: I was about to come to the points that the hon. Gentleman made. The hon. Gentleman made a number of allegations about firms—McAlpine, Nicholas Labour Hire, Vickers, and others. He made the allegations in his own inimitable way. It is not for me to pass judgment on whether those allegations are right, and the hon. Gentleman needs no lectures from me about how to bring such matters to the attention of the relevant authorities. Clearly, he feels that he has started that process today.

Mr. John Evans: I am grateful to the Minister for accepting the principle of amendment No. 21, which stands in my name. I should explain that I did not participate in the debate merely because of pressure of time and because other hon. Members wished to speak.

Mr. Nicholls: On that thoroughly uncontentious note, I conclude my remarks by congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his perspicacity in realising that an extra paragraph should have been included.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: We look with considerable interest to see what the Government propose by way of a concession to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), and we welcome the fact that they are prepared to make such a concession.
It is disingenuous of the Government to argue that they are doing members of trade unions an amazing favour by making it unlawful to refuse to employ someone because he is a trade union member. The Government do not accept the logic of the case by offering equivalent protection to someone who is active in his or her trade union. It is ludicrous to afford protection to those who are members but not to someone who has taken an active part in his or her union even at a very low level. It will be ridiculous if employers are allowed to use that loophole and continue to refuse to employ on that basis. I must make our strong objections clear. The Government seem to be trying to have it both ways.
I strongly disagree with the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), and he would not expect me to say otherwise. My hon. Friends have made good speeches explaining our reasons for that.
It is not good enough for the Minister to tell us piously that he thinks that it is important that such secret organisations provide accurate information. Of course, if they provide information, that information should be accurate, but in reality it is not. It is neither accurate nor acceptable. The very fact that it is gathered in such a covert sinister way means that nobody—neither employer nor employee—should have any confidence in the activities of such listing organisations. They have no place in British industry.
The Government should accept our fairly minimal view of how blacklists should operate in our society. I must make it clear that, in the event of the Government not accepting our proposals, a Labour Government will bring in legislation to that effect. We are committed to that. It is a great shame that the Government do not recognise that they have the same kind of moral obligation if they really have the interests of both sides of industry at heart.
For those reasons, we shall seek to divide the House on new clause 2.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 126, Noes 178.

Division No. 215]
[9.15 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Buckley, George J.


Allen, Graham
Caborn, Richard


Anderson, Donald
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Armstrong, Hilary
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Clay, Bob


Battle, John
Cohen, Harry


Beckett, Margaret
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Corbett, Robin


Bermingham, Gerald
Cryer, Bob


Bidwell, Sydney
Cummings, John


Blair, Tony
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Boateng, Paul
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Dixon, Don


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Eadie, Alexander


Buchan, Norman
Eastham, Ken





Evans, John (St Helens N)
Martlew, Eric


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Maxton, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Meale, Alan


Fisher, Mark
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Flannery, Martin
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Foster, Derek
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Foulkes, George
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fyfe, Maria
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Galloway, George
Mowlam, Marjorie


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Murphy, Paul


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Nellist, Dave


Golding, Mrs Llin
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Graham, Thomas
O'Brien, William


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
O'Neill, Martin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Pike, Peter L.


Grocott, Bruce
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Primarolo, Dawn


Haynes, Frank
Quin, Ms Joyce


Henderson, Doug
Redmond, Martin


Hinchliffe, David
Reid, Dr John


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Richardson, Jo


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Robertson, George


Home Robertson, John
Robinson, Geoffrey


Howells, Geraint
Rogers, Allan


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Ruddock, Joan


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Sheerman, Barry


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Illsley, Eric
Short, Clare


Ingram, Adam
Skinner, Dennis


Janner, Greville
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Snape, Peter


Leighton, Ron
Soley, Clive


Lewis, Terry
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Turner, Dennis


McAllion, John
Wallace, James


McAvoy, Thomas
Walley, Joan


McCrea, Rev William
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McFall, John
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McKelvey, William
Winnick, David


McLeish, Henry
Worthington, Tony


McWilliam, John
Wray, Jimmy


Madden, Max
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Mahon, Mrs Alice



Marek, Dr John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie and Mr. Frank Cook.


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)



NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Alexander, Richard
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Carrington, Matthew


Amos, Alan
Carttiss, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Chapman, Sydney


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Chope, Christopher


Atkins, Robert
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Atkinson, David
Conway, Derek


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Curry, David


Baldry, Tony
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bellingham, Henry
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Day, Stephen


Benyon, W.
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bevan, David Gilroy
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Dover, Den


Body, Sir Richard
Dunn, Bob


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Durant, Tony


Boswell, Tim
Eggar, Tim


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Evennett, David


Bowis, John
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Fishburn, John Dudley


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Forman, Nigel


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Franks, Cecil


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Freeman, Roger


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gardiner, George


Budgen, Nicholas
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Burns, Simon
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Butler, Chris
Goodhart, Sir Philip






Goodlad, Alastair
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Morrison, Sir Charles


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Moss, Malcolm


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Neubert, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Ground, Patrick
Nicholls, Patrick


Hague, William
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Norris, Steve


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hanley, Jeremy
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hannam, John
Patnick, Irvine


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Harris, David
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hawkins, Christopher
Portillo, Michael


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Powell, William (Corby)


Hayward, Robert
Raffan, Keith


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Redwood, John


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Rhodes James, Robert


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Riddick, Graham


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hunter, Andrew
Rost, Peter


Irvine, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Jack, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Jackson, Robert
Sackville, Hon Tom


Janman, Tim
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Jessel, Toby
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Key, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Kilfedder, James
Shelton, Sir William


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knapman, Roger
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knowles, Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Knox, David
Speed, Keith


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lightbown, David
Steen, Anthony


Lilley, Peter
Stevens, Lewis


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lord, Michael
Stokes, Sir John


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Maclean, David
Sumberg, David


Madel, David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Malins, Humfrey
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mans, Keith
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thurnham, Peter


Maude, Hon Francis
Tracey, Richard


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Watts, John


Mellor, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wiggin, Jerry


Miller, Sir Hal
Wood, Timothy


Mills, Iain
Yeo, Tim


Miscampbell, Norman
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)



Moate, Roger
Tellers for the Noes:


Monro, Sir Hector
Mr. Greg Knight and Mr Michael Fallon.


Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 5

CHANGE IN TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

'Every trade union shall be given sufficient time to ballot its members on whether or not they wish to take industrial action if their employer seeks to change any of the terms and conditions of his employees' contract of employment.'.—[Mr. John Evans.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Evans: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take new clause 9—

NOTICE OF CHANGE IN TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

'Section 15 of the Employment Act 1982 (liability of trade unions in certain actions in tort) will remain in force if an employer changes or attempts to change, without giving at least 14 days notice to the trade union concerned, any of the terms and conditions of his empoloyees' contract of employment.'.

Mr. Evans: Time is pressing, and I shall be brief.
The purpose of the new clauses is to attempt to retain the status quo in what are frequently difficult industrial situations where the work force is at loggerheads with the employer. The specific purpose is to seek to prevent a vicious employer from using clause 6 of the Bill for whatever nefarious ends he may have. Clause 6 would outlaw all unofficial action, not just strikes. If workers take unofficial action—frequently it is taken because an employer procrastinates on some particular problem—their union must "without delay" repudiate the action of its members using the following abrupt and callous words:
Your union has repudiated any call for industrial action to which this notice relates and will give no support to such action. If you are dismissed while taking unofficial industrial action, you will have no right to complain of unfair dismissal.
If the Government insist on going ahead with this monstrous legislation, they must find a better form of words than that.
The point at issue is that, if the union does not repudiate the action of its members, and if any union official, paid or unpaid, down to the lowliest shop steward, has been in any way involved in the industrial action, the union's funds are placed in jeopardy because the employer or customer of the employer is able to sue the trade union. I will not repeat the instances that I gave in Committee, but the vast majority of actions occur when an employer upsets the status quo.
New clause 5 would give trade unions time to ballot their members when such situations arise. New clause 9 would allow the status quo to remain in place for 14 days. In other words, it would allow the union to go into the place where the dispute was taking place and seek to resolve it without bringing in the whole panoply of the law.
There is any amount of evidence that the overwhelming majority of unofficial actions in Great Britain have been brought about by employers unilaterally altering the status quo at the place of work. The Minister has already accepted the spirit of one of my amendments. I hope that, in the same spirit, he will accept the two new clauses and recognise that they will assist in difficult industrial situations.

Mr. Nicholls: I can certainly understand why the hon. Gentleman is concerned, but I cannot go as far as accepting the spirit of the amendments. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman does not like the Bill at all. He does not like repudiation structures and looks at a case where he imagines unofficial action breaking out—where an employer unilaterally alters the terms of contract. The hon. Gentleman will know that there are remedies in the civil courts for employers who try to behave in that way. Is there something so special about that type of employer abuse that the repudiation structures in the Bill should be set to one side? I do not see it that way. No extra time needs to be given, because the matter is not time-limited.


As the hon. Gentleman says, the repudiation has to be carried out without delay and even then the union has only to do its best. I understand the hon. Gentleman's motives. He is returning to a matter which he feels strongly about, but I do not agree with him.

Mr. John Evans: The Minister is a lawyer and to say that there is a civil remedy in such cases demonstrates that he does not live in the world of ordinary working people. It is monstrous to make such a suggestion. I hope that my noble Friends in another place will have more time to deal with this matter than I have. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS

"It is unlawful for any employer to refuse to grant collective bargaining rights to his employees provided that a majority of the employees have, in a secret ballot, voted in favour of collective bargaining rights exercised through the trade union of their choice.'.—[Mr John Evans.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Evans: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause seeks to establish bargaining rights for employees when a secret ballot has been carried out and it has been demonstrated that the employees wish to be represented for collective bargaining purposes by the union of their choice.
Clause 1 of the Bill makes it unlawful to refuse employment to a person because he is or is not a member of a trade union. The Secretary of State claims that he has demonstrated his even-handedness. The Bill is not even-handed; I should be amazed if it were. It is difficult to imagine any situation in which an employer would refuse to employ someone and tell him to his face that he refused to do so because he was a member of a trade union. The chances are that the employer would think up a thousand excuses before he got round to that one.
There is another side to the matter that I should like to draw to the attention of the House. While it would he illegal for an employer to refuse employment on the ground that the person was a member of a trade union, it would not be illegal to refuse employment on the ground of previous industrial activity. The employer would be perfectly free to tell somone to his face that he would not employ him because of the trade union activity in which he had indulged in the past. That needs to be stressed, because perhaps the Secretary of State has overlooked it.
There is another important issue. If the Secretary of State is giving the right to belong to a trade union, surely another right should go with that—the right to representation. The fact that a person is allowed to be a member of a trade union but is then denied the right to have that trade union represent him, which applies in many cases, means that the worker has gained precisely nothing.
An increasing number of companies are unilaterally withdrawing union recognition from their employees. I recently received a letter from SOGAT and the National Union of Journalists protesting about Associated Newspapers withdrawing trade union rights from the members of those two unions and imposing individual

contracts on union members. The union makes the point that no other country in the EEC imposes such a policy. It is asking for the right to be recognised.
I hope that the Minister will recognise the strength of what I am saying. Although I do not expect him to accept my new clause, as a member of the Labour party who has always taken a great interest in trade union affairs, I assure him that, now that the Tory party has given the right to individuals to belong to a trade union, the next Labour Government will give the recognition rights that must go with that.

Mr. Nicholls: If a Labour Government, some time in the future, were to do that, they would be turning back the clock a very long way. The hon. Gentleman is aware that one of the first legislative steps that the Government took in industrial relations was to repeal sections 11 to 16 of the 1975 Act, which provided for what one might call compulsory recognition procedures. It is one of those issues on which one must decide where one stands. The Government do not doubt that it is for the employer to decide whether to recognise a trade union for a particular purpose. It would not he a progressive step to turn back the clock.
The hon. Gentleman should cast back his mind to the unique position of the 1970s, when ACAS told the Government that the recognition procedures were not constructive. To return to the atmosphere of the 1970s, with all the recognition disputes of that time, would be wrong. It was not appropriate for the 1970s, it was not appropriate for the 1980s and it certainly is not right for the 1990s.

Mr. John Evans: The Minister has missed my point. I referred to a majority of employees holding a secret ballot and voting for collective bargaining rights. It is clear that the Government's thoughts lie entirely with the employers. The Opposition believe that collective bargaining is a joint exercise between employers and trade unions. We shall seek to redress the balance that has been heavily tilted in favour of employers and against employees. I shall be seeking a more equitable state of affairs—in about, I suggest, 18 months.
Again, I have not had the opportunity to develop my argument because of the pressure of time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 13

LIMITED EXTENSION OF LEGAL AID TO INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL PROCEEDINGS

'In schedule 2, Part I to the Legal Aid Act 1988, after paragraph 3 there shall be inserted:
3A. Proceedings in industrial tribunals relating to the question of whether or not the tribunals jurisdiction is excluded by section 62 or 62A of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, or which are proceedings under schedule 1 of the Employment Act 1990.".'.—[Mr. Wallace.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Wallace: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The principle of the new clause is to extend legal aid to industrial tribunal proceedings as specified in the new clause. We believe that legal aid could be more generally applied to proceedings before industrial tribunals. After


all, the issues raised are often fundamental to an individual's rights, and not least his employment. Important issues can arise and, as in the civil courts, individuals should have the right to legal aid if they meet the financial criteria. Employment rights should be of equal importance.
To get the new clause within the scope of the long title, we have had to restrict it to two particular matters. They are relevant matters in respect of which we believe that individuals should rightly receive legal aid assistance to enable them to pursue their cases. The first relates to circumstances where, under clause 7, an employee would lose the right to go to an industrial tribunal if he was dismissed while engaged in an unofficial industrial action.
During earlier debates there was considerable discussion about the circumstances in which action might or might not be considered to be industrial action. The Minister agreed that that was a matter which the industrial tribunal could determine. Having a mind as to what would come up later, I noted that he said that such matters could be complicated and technical. The fact that they might be so complicated and technical means that the individual who wishes to take such a matter to an industrial tribunal should have recourse to legal aid so that he is properly represented before the tribunal.
The new clause also applies to tribunal hearings under such schedule, which relates to the protection given to individuals—their right to belong or not to belong to a trade union. Hon. Members have asked whether that includes trade union activities. That may give rise to important litigation and the new clause would bolster up the right, which I welcome, to belong or not to belong to a trade union.
Starred new clause 14 would make the same provisions for Scotland and if, in his wisdom, the Minister is prepared to allow my new clause, he will ensure that in another place equivalent Scottish provisions will also be legislated.

Mr. Nicholls: The new clause caused me something of a dilemma because I could not decide whether to take the statesmanlike approach, realise that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) had to frame it in the way that he had and deal with what he would have liked it to deal with, or to take my usual approach and castigate him for deficiencies in the drafting. I decided to be magnanimous. I understand that the only way in which the hon. Gentleman could bring the new clause within the scope of the Bill was to tie it to the jurisdictional points.
It might be possible, even if ingenuity was not necessary, to consider the jurisdictional points as crucial to whether a person could get himself before a tribunal, but at the end of the day it would produce some curious anomalies. For example, if in the middle of a hearing a jurisdictional point was satisfied, the person would find that he did not have legal aid. This is all about, in intent if not in form, whether legal aid would be available for industrial tribunal hearings.
The hon. Gentleman and I share a common guilt in that we are both lawyers and that may frame our attitudes in a particular way. But putting aside the commercial possibilities, industrial tribunals are supposed to be a relatively informal mechanism, and the provision of legal aid will only encourage their formalism by bringing people

like us into them more readily. Therefore, I cannot accept the spirit or the form of the new clause, but I compliment the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity.

Mr. Wallace: The Minister's response comes as no surprise, and I thank him for his compliment. When the important issue of employment arises, it would not be unreasonable to have legal representation. I understand that moves are afoot to bring litigation on contracts of employment into the scope of industrial tribunals which at present qualify for legal aid in the civil courts. If that change comes about, we shall have to look afresh at having legal aid for tribunals. However, clearly, I shall not make much progress on the words on the amendment paper. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

INTERPRETATION AND OTHER SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Amendment made: No. 1, in page 3, line 36, at end insert—
'(1A) Where a person may not be considered for appointment or election to an office in a trade union unless he is a member of the union, or of a particular branch or section of the union or of one of a number of particular branches or sections of the union, nothing in section 1 applies to anything done for the purpose of securing compliance with that condition although as holder of the office he would be employed by the union.
For this purpose an "office" means any position—

(a) by virtue of which the holder is an "official" within the meaning of section 30(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, or
(b) in relation to which the duty in section 1 of the Trade Union Act 1984 (duty to hold elections) applies.'.—[Mr. Eggar.]

Clause 5

MINOR AMENDMENTS RELATING TO BALLOTS

Amendments made: No. 3, in page 5, line 10, leave out 'section 10' and insert 'Part II'.

No. 4, in page 5, line 13, at end insert
'; and related expressions shall be construed accordingly.'.

No. 5, in page 5, line 25, leave out
'137 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978'
and insert
'127 of the Employment Protection Act 1975'.—[Mr. Nicholls.]

Mr. Howard: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 5, line 30, at end insert—
'(4) In section 4(1B) of the Trade Union Act 1913 and section 2(5) of the Trade Union Act 1984 (requirements with respect to voting papers in political fund ballot or ballot for union office), in paragraph (a) after "must", insert "state the name of the independent scrutineer and".
(5) In section 15(2) of the Employment Act 1988 (duties of trade union with respect to independent scrutineer in case of political fund ballot or ballot for union office), after paragraph (b) insert—
(bb) must, before the scrutineer begins to carry out his functions, either—

(i) send a notice stating the name of the scrutineer to every member of the union to whom it is reasonably practicable to send such a notice, or
(ii) take all such other steps for notifying members of the name of the scrutineer as it is


the practice of the union to take when matters of general interest to all its members need to be brought to their attention;".'.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take amendment (a), leave out lines paragraph (bb) and insert—
'(bb) must supply any member of the union, upon demand, with the name of the scrutineer and the address at which he may be contacted.'.

Mr. Howard: Amendment No. 6 springs directly from the recent ballot rigging in the election for the executive of the Transport and General Workers Union.
The House will recall that, on 9 February this year, the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union announced that, because of irregularities in the voting for the executive, he had suspended the ballot and was ordering the election to be held all over again. It subsequently emerged that up to 10,000 voting forms had been forged, affecting the elections for 11 of the 39 seats on the union's executive.
The law requires that an independent scrutineer be appointed to oversee union executive elections, but the ballot rigging was apparently discovered by the Electoral Reform Society, which had been engaged to count the votes and not to act as independent scrutineer for the ballot. The scrutineer appointed by the union was someone entirely different.
9.45 pm
No doubt Mr. Todd, the union's general secretary, had reasons for this arrangement. It was, of course, entirely proper for him to appoint one organisation to count the votes and someone else to act as scrutineer. What was curious and, for reasons I will explain, disturbing was that very few people appeared to know about that arrangement. According to newspaper reports, not even the candidates in the election knew the scrutineer's identity.
There was a natural assumption that the Electoral Reform Society was acting as scrutineer. The society is, after all, one of only three organisations specified by name in a statutory instrument as eligible to undertake independent scrutiny of such ballots. The society has a long and honourable record and has been used in that way by a number of other trade unions.
Furthermore, I understand that the members of the union were asked to return their completed voting forms to
The Scrutineer, c/o the Electoral Reform Society".
In all the circumstances, therefore, it was natural for members of the union to assume that the society was indeed the appointed scrutineer for the election.
Clearly, that was a profoundly unsatisfactory situation. Parliament has laid down that unions must appoint independent scrutineers to oversee union elections. The Employment Act 1988 makes it clear that an independent scrutineer must be someone whom the union has no reason to believe will carry out his functions incompetently, or who could reasonably have his independence in relation to the union or the election called into question. In addition, the qualifications that must be satisfied to be eligible as an independent scrutineer of trade union elections are set out in some detail in an order made by my predecessor.
If the scrutineer appointed by a trade union does not meet those qualifications, the law allows the members of that union to challenge the validity of that election. But, of

course, those rights are worthless if the union members do not know who the scrutineer is. Nor is it likely to occur to any of them to challenge the appointment if, as in this case, there is a widespread impression that the scrutineer is an organisation as widely respected as the Electoral Reform Society.
As the House will recall, when the identity of the scrutineer became known, there were reports of considerable concern within the union. Allegations were made—and strongly denied—about the role that the scrutineer himself had played in the first, invalid, election. Any such allegations are properly a matter for the police investigation that is now taking place.
Under the 1988 Act, the scrutineer has a clear and specific duty to supervise the production and distribution of all the voting papers. What is abundantly clear in this case is that, whatever arrangements were made for producing and distributing the voting papers, they were not proof against activities so serious that Mr. Todd felt obliged to order the elections for all 39 seats—not just the 11 directly affected—to be held all over again. As a result of the controversy within the union over his role in the first election, the scrutineer resigned before the second ballot took place.
Those are the facts as they have emerged since Mr. Todd's announcement on 9 February. It is a great pity that those responsible have not been identified. Calling in the police was delayed for a total of six weeks while an internal investigation was carried out under the personal supervision of the union's general secretary. It has been widely reported that the internal investigation 'Was unable to establish who was responsible. If that is the case, the delay in calling in the police is all the more unfortunate.
What concerns us here is not so much the irregularity involved in the ballot—serious as that clearly was—as the fact that the members of the TGWU were kept in ignorance of the identity of the scrutineer appointed by their union to oversee the election, and were thus denied the right to challenge his appointment—had they wished to do so—until after the ballot rigging had been discovered.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste)—who cannot be present this evening as a result of a long-standing engagement—moved an amendment designed to meet that problem. His amendment was technically defective, but amendment No. 6 deals directly with the problem. It adds a new requirement to the duties of trade unions with respect to the independent scrutiny of ballots and elections that are set out in section 15(2) of the Employment Act 1988.
Amendment No. 6 requires a union to notify its members of the identity of the scrutineer before he begins to carry out his functions. That can be done in whatever way the union normally communicates matters of general interest to its members, but the amendment also requires the union to include the name on each voting paper, so that every member of the union knows, before he casts his vote, who is the scrutineer. That is an entirely reasonable addition to the rights of union members. There can be no justification for a union to withhold the name of the scrutineer, especially in circumstances where union members may be misled into thinking that an entirely different organisation, such as the Electoral Reform Society, has been appointed to do the job.

Mr. Wallace: Have the Minister and his Department any estimate of the likely cost to unions, for example to the Transport and General Workers Union, if they were to implement the new statutory requirements?

Mr. Howard: Since all they would have to do is to specify the name of the scrutineer on the ballot paper, I cannot believe that there would be any significant cost.

Mr. Martin Flannery: We all want fairness in ballots; that is clear. Does the Minister want the same for companies' shareholders? Does he want their ballots to be accurate and checked on carefully?

Mr. Howard: I have never before heard it alleged that shareholders are deprived of any information about any matter on which they have the right to cast their vote. If they have that right, they are given all the information that they require.
This is not a minor matter. If union members do not know who the scrutineer is, they are effectively denied the rights that they were given by the Employment Act 1988 to challenge the scrutineer's competence and qualifications to do the job. As a result, the validity of a whole election may be cast in doubt. Therefore, I hope that—contrary to some of the indications that we have been given tonight—we can look to the whole House to support the amendment.

Mr. Wallace: We have heard an interesting speech from the Secretary of State. How many times have hon. Members and the Chair heard Ministers refuse to commit themselves or take any action on an issue, pending the outcome of an inquiry? Today, however, the Secretary of State is jumping the gun. The amendment does not seem to add much to what is already in the Bill, but the Minister seems to want to make some cheap points at the expense of the Transport and General Workers Union. So far as I can tell, the general secretary of that union took a responsible course of action and called the police in to investigate. The Minister could have had the decency to wait for the investigation to take place before coming up with proposals which do not add up to very much.
If I have misunderstood the position, I would not insist on pressing the amendment in my name, but as I understand it, the Government's amendment uses the words:
must, before the scrutineer begins to carry out his functions".
That might mean that things have to be done in advance of the ballot. Notice will have to be given of the identity and address of the scrutineer. It was for that reason, to avoid possible expense and unnecessary time-wasting, that I suggest that any union member who wished to find out the name and address of the scrutineer or where he or she or the body concerned could be contacted could simply ask and the union would be obliged to tell them. That seems to me a simple way to achieve much the same end.

Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. Member moved his amendment?

Mr. Wallace: I have not.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: As the Secretary of State is one of the better-paid Members of the House, I should have thought he had better things to do with his time than waste it on such a ridiculous amendment. But for the fact that the Secretary of State has clearly decided to put trade unions

back on the political agenda to appease the Prime Minister or the lunatic right of his party, he would recognise that the amendment is totally irrelevant.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) made the valid point that a police investigation is under way. In other circumstances, Ministers would come to the Dispatch Box to say that it would be premature to take any action before the investigation is concluded. At best, the amendment is premature—at worst, it is totally irrelevant to trade union members and to the Government.

Mr. John Evans: Tory Members talk a great deal of humbug about the election of trade union officials. When the Tory leadership election took place, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) went into the Committee Room where the Tories were conducting their ballot and discovered that there was no protective cover for Tory Members voting in that election—they had to mark their ballot papers in front of the scrutineer. Yet they criticise trade union ballots.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. As the Secretary of State is paying attention to the fine details, I have no doubt that he will wish to respond to it.
If the Secretary of State has nothing better to do than spend his time on this kind of amendment, he ought to look for something else to do.

Mr. Howard: In the election for the leader of the Conservative party, there was no doubt about who the scrutineers were. The purpose of the amendment is to make clear to trade union members who the scrutineer is when they exercise their vote. The Opposition's reaction is truly astonishing. This modest measure simply ensures that trade union members have the information that they require so that they can complain if anything goes wrong. It does not prejudice the inquiry. These general procedures will lead to an improvement in the rights of trade union members. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has proved once again that his party is the party of trade union officials, not trade union members.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6

RESPONSIBILITY OF TRADE UNION FOR ACTS OF OFFICIALS, &C.

Amendments made: No. 7, in page 6, line 7, leave out 'is'
and insert
'was at the material time'.

No. 8, in page 6, line 7, leave out 'include' and insert 'included'.—[Mr. Howard.]

Mr. Wallace: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 6, leave out lines 22 to 27 and insert—

'(b) the union must do its best to give written notice of the fact and date of repudiation, without delay, to the employer of workers taking part, or likely to take part, in industrial action as a result of the act.
(c) on being notified of repudiation by the union, the employer must, without delay, inform his employees who are members of the union of the fact and date of the union's repudiation.'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 28, in page 6, line 29, leave out `(b)(i)' and insert '(c)'.

Mr. Wallace: This deals with the procedure that a union must follow in order to repudiate any suggestion of


industrial action. When these provisions were debated in Committee, the Under-Secretary of State said that their purpose was to be fair to unions. Many Committee members pointed out that onerous duties would be placed on unions under subsection (5)—not least to inform every union member who might take part in industrial action.
The amendment seeks to oblige a union to give written notice of repudiation and the date of that repudiation without any delay to the employers of the workers taking part in industrial action. It would then be the duty of the employer without delay to inform his employees who are union members. The employer undoubtedly has more direct access and quicker means of communication with his employees than the union. It would undoubtedly be in the employer's interest to impart that information. If he could do so more efficiently and quickly than the union, it would relieve the union of an additional burden and responsibility. It might also be in the interest and to the benefit of the employer. In the interests, therefore, of achieving a fair balance, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: We welcome the amendment. We are unhappy about the clause, but the Minister knows the arguments. The amendment is designed not to undermine the clause but to provide limited help to trade unions. I hope that the Minister accepts that it is in the interest of maintaining a proper balance, even though the clause is very unbalanced, that the amendment has been tabled.

Mr. Nicholls: On other occasions and at another time of day I should have had rather a lot to say about the amendment. I cannot accept it. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is concerned that the obligations placed on unions are unduly onerous. We certainly do not accept that. The obligation is to take steps to repudiate what is effectively official action. If the union does not want to stand by that action and wants to repudiate it, it seems entirely right that it should draw that to the attention of those to whom the call has been made. The obligation is not absolute, even on the face of the Bill; it is merely that the union has to do its best and to proceed without delay, so that is not particularly onerous.
The hon. Gentleman says, in a moment of brevity—I wondered whether it was in a moment of levity—that the obligation should be given to the employers; let them deal with it, as it is their problem. It would also have the ingenious, and I assume unintended, effect——

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Employment Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Nicholls: All the employer would have to do would be to ensure that he did not give the employees notice. That would mean that the repudiation had not been effective and that the union would remain liable. Some might think that that would appeal to the Government, but they would be entirely wrong. I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Wallace: On the first day of the Committee, the Minister was generous enough to say that he would try not to make cheap debating points on the basis of inadequate

drafting. He could not help himself in the last gasp, but I forgive him. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10

CONSEQUENTIAL REVISION OR REVOCATION OF CODES OF PRACTICE

Amendments made: No. 9, in page 9, line 38, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
'(1) A Code of Practice to which this section applies may be revised by the appropriate authority in accordance with this section for the purpose of bringing it into conformity with subsequent statutory provisions by the making of consequential amendments and the omission of obsolete passages.
Statutory provisions" here means provisions made by or under an Act of Parliament, and "subsequent" statutory provisions means provisions coming into force after the Code was issued (whether before or after the commencement of this section).
(2) The Codes of Practice to which this section applies are—

(a) those issued under section 3 of the Employment Act 1980, in relation to which the appropriate authority is the Secretary of State,
(b) those issued under section 6 of the Employment Protection Act 1975, in relation to which the appropriate authority is the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, and
(c) that having effect under paragraph 4 of Schedule 17 to that Act, in relation to which the appropriate authority is the Secretary of State.'.

No. 10, in page 10, line 7, at end insert—
'(3A) Where the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service proposes to revise a Code under this section, it shall transmit a draft of the revised Code to the Secretary of State who shall—

(a) if he approves of it, lay the draft before each House of Parliament;
(b) if he does not approve of it, publish details of his reasons for withholding approval.'.

No 11, in page 10, line 9, leave out 'the' and insert 'a'.

No 12, in page 10, line 9, after `Parliament' insert
'under subsection (3) or (3A)'.

No. 13, in page 10, line 16, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate authority'.

No. 14, in page 10, line 20, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
'(6) A Code of Practice to which this section applies may be revoked by the Secretary of State by order made by statutory instrument; but no such order shall be made—

(a) in the case of a Code in relation to which the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service is the appropriate authority, except at the request of the Service, and
(b) in any case, unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

(6A) If the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service requests the Secretary of State to revoke a Code of Practice in relation to which it is the appropriate authority and he decides not to do so, he shall publish details of his reasons for his decision.'.—[Mr. Howard.]

Schedule 2

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendment made: No. 15, in page 17, leave out lines 12 to 35 and insert—


'(2) For subsections (1) and (2) substitute—
(1) An act done by a trade union to induce a person to take part, or continue to take part, in industrial action is not within section 13 of the 1974 Act (protection from certain liabilities in tort) unless the industrial action has the support of a ballot.".
(3) In subsection (3), for the words from "an act" to "done with" substitute "industrial action shall be regarded as having", in paragraph (a) for the words from "strike" to "occurred" substitute "industrial action in question", and for paragraph (c) substitute—

"(c) the requirements of section (Calling of industrial action with support of ballot) of the Employment Act 1990 are satisfied;".

(4) In subsection (3A), in paragraph (a), for the words from "by an act" to "performance" substitute "to take part, or continue to take part, in industrial action", in paragraph (b) for the words from "strike" to "interference" substitute "industrial action", and omit the words "of that breach or interference".
(5) In subsection (4) omit the words "strike or other".
(6) In subsection (4A), omit the words "inducing a breach or interference", and for the words from "in the course of which" to the end substitute "to which the act relates".
(7) In subsection (5) omit the definitions of "authorisation or endorsement", "commercial contract", "contract of employment", "relevant act" and "tort" and the words from "and any reference" to the end.

Employment Act 1988 ( c.19)

3.—(1) Section 1 of the Employment Act 1988 (right to a ballot before industrial action) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for the words from "that the union" to "continue to take part" substitute "that members of the union, including himself, are likely to be or have been induced by the union to take part or to continue to take part in industrial action which does not have the support of a ballot".
(3) In subsection (2), for paragraphs (a) to (c) substitute "that the application is well-founded" and omit the words from "(including" to "endorsement)".
(4) For subsections (3) and (4) substitute—
(3) For the purposes of this section an act shall be taken to have been done by a trade union if it was authorised or endorsed by the union; and the provisions of subsections (3) to (7) of section 15 of the Employment Act 1982 apply for the purpose of determining whether an act is to be taken to have been so authorised or endorsed.
Those provisions also apply in relation to proceedings for failure to comply with an order under this section as they apply in relation to the original proceedings.".
(5) In subsection (5) omit the words "an authorisation or endorsement by a trade union of any" and for paragraph (e) substitute—

"(e) the requirements of section (Calling of industrial action with support of ballot) of the Employment Act 1990 are satisfied.".'.—[Mr. Howard.]

Schedule 3

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 16, in page 19, line 9, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 and insert—

'In section 10—




(a) in subsection (3A), the words "of that breach or interference";




(b) in subsection (4), the words "strike or other";




(c) in subsection (4A), the words "inducing a breach or interference";




(d) in subsection (5), the definitions of "authorisation or endorsement" "commercial contract", "contract of employment" "relevant act" and "tort" and the words from" and any reference" to the end.'.

No 17, in page 19, line 22, at end insert—

'1988 c.19.
Employment Act 1988.
In section 1—




(a) in subsection (2), the words from "(including" to "endorsement)";




(b) in subsection (5), the words "an authorisation or endorsement by a trade union of any".'.—[Mr. Howard.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Howard: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill is a further step in the step-by-step reform of industrial relations that was begun more than 10 years ago. It carries that process of reform an important stage further by removing the last vestige of legal protection from the closed shop and imposing necessary restraints on secondary action and wildcat strikes. It also gives trade union members rights not to be refused employment on account of their membership.

Mr. Robert Hayward: May I put on record the fact that I regret the continued omission of a dispensation for employers who hold strong religious beliefs and who do not have equal freedom not to recognise trade unions in the same way that employees have that right.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend knows that we have given careful consideration to that, as I undertook on Second Reading that we would, but we are unable to meet the point that he has raised.
The Labour party believes that the role of the law in these matters is to protect the striker and the union leader. We believe that the law must protect jobs and businesses from the abuse of industrial power and that it must guarantee the democratic rights of trade union members. That is what the Bill will achieve, and that is why I commend it to the House.

Mr. Blair: We have debated the Bill for many weeks in Committee and again in the House today. I suggest that two issues have emerged clearly. First, the Bill is unfair because it fails to provide protection against discrimination on the ground of people's trade union activities and against the blacklisting of people who are active in trade unions—something which should unite all democratic members of society. It bans any form of sympathy action, no matter what the circumstances or justification.
The Bill is unfair, above all, because it removes from people the right to go to an industrial tribunal and it shuts out the jurisdiction of the tribunal when people take unofficial action, irrespective of the reasons for their action and even when they are about issues such as health and safety—matters which should concern us all.
The Bill is unfair and it is also irrelevant. As we examine the issues that face Britain today—the training and skills crisis, the problems of low pay and problems concerned with women at work—and measure the Bill against those problems, it is clear that it fails not merely because it is unfair but because it is utterly irrelevant to the nation's future. A Labour Government will in due course address that future.

Mr. Wallace: The one good step that the Bill takes is to abolish the pre-entry closed shop. We on this Bench not only welcome that, but we called on the Government to take that step even before they were prepared to do so. That aside, the Bill and particularly clause 7 is so wholly alien to the promotion of good industrial relations that as a package it cannot possibly be supported.
The Government are aware that we on this Bench have been prepared to support some of the employment legislation that they have introduced. For example, we strongly supported ballots. But we believe that the purpose of the law in industrial relations—where it should appear at all—should be in the pursuit of balance and fairness. This Bill, like the measure on this subject introduced in the previous Session, is an effort to tilt the balance in favour of employers by introducing small measures here and there—and, in clause 7, a large measure—which disrupt that balance.
To bring in the law in that way is no substitute for a proper and good industrial partnership in industrial relations. The measure will not achieve the good industrial relations that hon. Members in all parts of the House wish to see.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: I listened carefully to the remarks of Labour Members. I had not intended to intervene at this stage because my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward), in an intervention to the Secretary of State, covered the point that I wanted to make.
I welcome the Bill because of the contribution that it will make to providing a more satisfactory mechanism by which powerful bodies representing workers and employers may settle disputes and because it seeks in a genuine way to provide for the consciences of individual workers to be met.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood raised with the Minister the question of people's religious

conscience, there was a cry from the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), from a sedentary position, to the effect that we should not take notice of the Plymouth Brethren because they did not vote. That was a disgraceful statement to make——

Mr. John Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to put words in my mouth? I did not make the statement that he claimed I made. I said that the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) would not get the Plymouth Brethren vote because they did not vote.

Mr. Speaker: I do not intend to get involved in that matter.

Mr. Griffiths: I accept the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of his own words. The suggestion that we should ignore the legitimate, deeply held views of a body of people who may not vote is unacceptable to me. It is important for us to put on record the fact that at least some hon. Members take the view that we are here to represent all the people, regardless of whether they voted in the last election or will vote in the next. The genuinely held conscience of individuals is a matter of great concern to the House, even at a little after 10 o'clock.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 173, Noes 133.

Division No. 216]
[10.08 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Dickens, Geoffrey


Alexander, Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dover, Den


Amos, Alan
Dunn, Bob


Arbuthnot, James
Durant, Tony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dykes, Hugh


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Eggar, Tim


Atkins, Robert
Evennett, David


Atkinson, David
Fallon, Michael


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Baldry, Tony
Forman, Nigel


Bellingham, Henry
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Franks, Cecil


Benyon, W.
Freeman, Roger


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gardiner, George


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gill, Christopher


Boswell, Tim
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bowis, John
Goodlad, Alastair


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Gow, Ian


Browne, John (Winchester)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Budgen, Nicholas
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burns, Simon
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Butler, Chris
Ground, Patrick


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hague, William


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carrington, Matthew
Hanley, Jeremy


Carttiss, Michael
Hannam, John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Chapman, Sydney
Harris, David


Chope, Christopher
Hawkins, Christopher


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hayward, Robert


Conway, Derek
Hill, James


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Curry, David
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Day, Stephen
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)






Hunter, Andrew
Patnick, Irvine


Irvine, Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jack, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jackson, Robert
Portillo, Michael


Janman, Tim
Raffan, Keith


Jessel, Toby
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Redwood, John


Key, Robert
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Kilfedder, James
Rhodes James, Robert


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Riddick, Graham


Kirkhope, Timothy
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knapman, Roger
Rost, Peter


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rowe, Andrew


Knowles, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Knox, David
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lightbown, David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lilley, Peter
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shelton, Sir William


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lord, Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maclean, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Malins, Humfrey
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Mans, Keith
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Steen, Anthony


Mates, Michael
Stevens, Lewis


Maude, Hon Francis
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sumberg, David


Miller, Sir Hal
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mills, Iain
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thurnham, Peter


Moate, Roger
Tracey, Richard


Monro, Sir Hector
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Watts, John


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Widdecombe, Ann


Morrison, Sir Charles
Wood, Timothy


Moss, Malcolm
Yeo, Tim


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Neubert, Michael



Nicholls, Patrick
Tellers for the Ayes;


Norris, Steve
Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Tom Sackville.


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley



Oppenheim, Phillip



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Blair, Tony


Allen, Graham
Boateng, Paul


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Armstrong, Hilary
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Buchan, Norman


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Buckley, George J.


Battle, John
Caborn, Richard


Beckett, Margaret
Callaghan, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Bermingham, Gerald
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Bidwell, Sydney
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)





Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
McLeish, Henry


Clay, Bob
McWilliam, John


Cohen, Harry
Madden, Max


Coleman, Donald
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Marek, Dr John


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Corbett, Robin
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Martlew, Eric


Cryer, Bob
Maxton, John


Cummings, John
Meale, Alan


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dixon, Don
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Doran, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Eadie, Alexander
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Eastham, Ken
Mowlam, Marjorie


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Murphy, Paul


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Nellist, Dave


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
O'Brien, William


Fisher, Mark
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Flannery, Martin
Patchett, Terry


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Pike, Peter L.


Foster, Derek
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Foulkes, George
Prescott, John


Fyfe, Maria
Primarolo, Dawn


Galloway, George
Quin, Ms Joyce


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Redmond, Martin


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Reid, Dr John


Golding, Mrs Llin
Richardson, Jo


Graham, Thomas
Robertson, George


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Rogers, Allan


Grocott, Bruce
Ruddock, Joan


Harman, Ms Harriet
Sheerman, Barry


Haynes, Frank
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Henderson, Doug
Short, Clare


Hinchliffe, David
Skinner, Dennis


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Home Robertson, John
Soley, Clive


Howells, Geraint
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Turner, Dennis


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Wallace, James


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Walley, Joan


Illsley, Eric
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Ingram, Adam
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Janner, Greville
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Winnick, David


Leighton, Ron
Worthington, Tony


Lewis, Terry
Wray, Jimmy


Litherland, Robert
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)



McAllion, John
Tellers for the Noes:


McAvoy, Thomas
Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.


McFall, John



McKelvey, William

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Godfrey Ermen Playing Field, Manchester

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Wood.]

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: In the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) let me say that I know that the first thing that the House will want to do is to congratulate Manchester United football club on its magnificent victory in the cup final.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment an issue of great importance to my constituents. I am well aware that the Adjournment debate is a Back-Bench prerogative which ought rarely, if ever, to be invaded from the Front Bench. I hope that by the time I have finished speaking hon. Members will understand why I have felt it necessary to initiate this debate.
In 1989, a wealthy Manchester cotton manufacturer of Dutch origin, Godrey Ermen, left a fund of £200,000 in trust for any object deemed worthy of assistance. In 1928, Arthur Roby QC, Godfrey Ermen's great-nephew and a trustee of the fund, gave a grant of £5,000 to Manchester and Salford Playing Fields Society for the purchase of land in Abbey Hey, Gorton, and for the land be laid out as a playing field. The £5,000 being found insufficient, a further £670 was added. When the land was purchased, it was ordered by the board of Charity Commissioners for England and Wales that it
shall forthwith vest in the official trustee of charity lands.
Later,
These thirteen acres and sixteen perches or thereabouts
became known as the Godfrey Ermen fields.
The inauguration ceremony in 1931 was presided over by the lord mayor of Manchester. At that ceremony, the field was dedicated "for ever and ever" for the use of all who choose to use it as a playing field. The lord mayor declared that the field was a "very fine lung" for Gorton and Openshaw. The field has not been used for sporting purposes since 1985. Even so, it has remained a valuable amenity to local residents—a green oasis in a heavily built-up area.
My constituency is one of the most heavily populated in the United Kingdom. In the list of the most densely populated parliamentary constituencies, it comes 47th out of 650. It is included in a Manchester and Salford inner-city partnership area in recognition of the deprivation that exists. It is in an area with one of the poorest health records in the city which, according to the city council, gives cause for concern. In the 1980s, people living in east Manchester, in which Gorton is situated, had a 73 to 78 per cent. greater likelihood of dying prematurely than people in the country as a whole. East Manchester has had more fatal and serious accidents involving children than anywhere else in Manchester, and it enjoys less recreational provision than the rest of the city. My constituents need the "very fine lung" provided by the green and open space of Godfrey Ermen field as much as they ever did.
A planning application for the use of the land for a residential development was refused in 1975, on the grounds, among others, that it conflicted with the provision of the city development plan which allocates the

land for sports grounds and allotments and woud also result in the loss of playing fields, which are underprovided in east Manchester and the city as a whole.
The city planning department stated to me this week that a general presumption against developing existing playing fields such as this is built into the city's development plan and into the structure plan. The House can therefore imagine the alarm when reports recently began to circulate that the Godfrey Ermen field was to be sold—or even had been sold—for building purposes. Although it was established that the field had not been sold, within a short period 2,000 local residents had signed a petition requesting that the Godfrey Ermen field be saved. Many more would have signed if more time had been available before, with councillor Colin Brierley and a representative of the residents, I presented the petition to the lord mayor of Manchester on 13 October.
The leader of the city council wrote to me stating:
The Playing Fields Association do admit that the land is surplus to their requirements and that they have had discussions with developers, including Barratts.
The city planning department wrote to councillor Anne Unwin last October stating:
The land…is being marketed through the firm of estate agents, Dunlop Heywood.
Following the presentation of the petition, on 18 October 1989 I wrote to Mr. David Gallop, the secretary of Manchester and Salford Playing Fields Society, requesting a meeting to discuss the future of the playing fields. The meeting was to be attended by local residents, the ward councilors—Tom Hamnett, Colin Brierley and Anne Unwin—and myself. Mr. Gallop's reply ignored my request for a meeting, so I wrote again, again asking for a meeting. Mr. Gallop wrote back stating:
the reason for not addressing the question of a meeting at this stage was to enable you"—
that is, myself or the residents—
to put forward any suggestions you might think helpful, and which would serve as a basis for discussions at any such meeting.
What we wanted was a meeting to clarify the intentions of the playing fields society. Even so, I wrote again to Mr. Gallop saying that any suggestions could be put forward at the meeting and, once again, asking for a meeting. Mr. Gallop wrote back, stating:
My offer of a meeting still stands"—
although he had not offered one—
providing you first put forward suggestions in writing … failure to take advantage of this offer can only cast doubt on the motives for your suggested meeting.
On receipt of that completely unprovoked, nasty and offensive letter, I decided that nothing more could be gained from communicating with an individual who was clearly both arrogant and unpleasant—and just as clearly unfitted to hold the secretaryship of a charitable organisation.
I therefore tabled a motion on the Order Paper expressing concern and followed it up with a letter to the chairman of the playing fields society, Mr. Leslie Mellor, asking amicably and politely for the meeting previously requested. That was on 28 December. By 2 March, he had not replied, so on that date I wrote again, again in amicable terms, but also advising Mr. Mellor that a failure on his part to respond would leave me with only the recourse of using my parliamentary opportunities to air this matter. He still did not reply, so I have sought and obtained this debate.
Mr. Gallop wrote to a local resident on 9 March
stating:
As far as the right hon. Gerald Kaufman M.P. is concerned, every letter from him has been personally answered within 48 hours.
Mr. Gallop is a liar. None of my letters has been answered within 48 hours and the letters that I have sent since 28 December—nearly five months ago—have not been answered at all.
Mr. Gallop told me the Manchester Evening News yesterday:
We have had no chance to reply".
Once again, he is a liar. He and Mr. Mellor have had seven months to reply, either at a meeting, which I have repeatedly requested, or in replies to my letters which Mr. Leslie Mellor has refused to provide. In any case, Mr. Gallop wrote to the Lord Mayor of Manchester on 18 April declaring:
There is really no point in holding any meetings.
During the past few months, there has been a succession of odd events and disturbing discoveries. Mr. Gallop said on the telephone to one of my constituents, Mr. Trevor Mooney, who lives in Ackroyd avenue next to the Godfrey Ermen field, that the Manchester and Salford playing fields society was thinking of building on the field. He suggested to Mr. Mooney that he should sell his house to make way for an access road to the field. Why did he do that if there are no plans to build on the field?
Mr. Gallop wrote a letter to the lord mayor of Manchester containing a further lie—that he had given me assurances when he had given me none. In that letter he admitted:
We have been approached at regular intervals by various property developers to sell the ground for housing etc but this is not uncommon with owners of land like ourselves. Discussions have taken place with some of these developers regarding their proposals, but nothing that might be acceptable has arisen from these discussions.
What on earth is a charitable trust doing having discussions with property developers about proposals from them about land bought by funds from a trust which was vested in the official trustee of charity lands and dedicated for use as a playing field "for ever and ever"?
Last month Mr. Richard Chambers, a representative of the surveyors Dunlop and Heywood, who act for the playing fields society, turned up at the Godfrey Ermen field. He handed his card to one of my constituents who lives in a neighbouring house in Violet street. He appeared to break the lock on the gate giving access to the field, to replace it with a new lock and to measure the width of the field.
My office has been in touch with Mr. Chambers this week and he states that he did no more than come and replace a broken lock. I do not question his word, but he will understand why in the present circumstances his action was interpreted with suspicion by local residents, especially as one of my constituents was told by Dunlop Heywood that plans had been drawn up for building on the playing field and three tenders had been received. My constituent was even told that three houses in Ackroyd avenue would have to be demolished to provide access.
I know nothing about Mr. David Gallop, the secretary
of the playing fields society, other than that he is an untruthful and offensive person. However, unless there is more than one Leslie Mellor, I understand that Mr. Leslie

Mellor, the chairman of the playing fields society, is an estate agent by profession, that he recently sold the estate agency which carried his name to another member of his family, Edward, and that Edward Mellor also owns a building company called East Manchester plc of which Leslie Mellor is said to be a director. If that is so, is Mr. Mellor a suitable person to be the chairman of a charitable organisation that owns land which, if made available for development, could be worth millions of pounds and on which 150 houses could be built?
Is an estate agent a suitable person to be the chairman of an organisation which admits to holding discussions about developing land which is clearly prey for property speculation? Who put Mr. Mellor in his position, and who put Mr. Gallop in his? To whom are they answerable? Clearly they are not answerable to local residents, local councillors or the local Member of Parliament, whom they ignore, misinform or tell lies to or about. How can they be got rid off?
Clearly, they are deplorable custodians of the land in their trust. I recently visited the Godfrey Ermen field. I had been told that a changing room on the field was regarded as a hazard to local children. Residents had therefore asked the playing fields society to secure it. Instead it demolished it, leaving a large pile of unsightly rubble.
The society has repeatedly been asked to secure the fence at the end of Coram street, which I saw when I visited the field. The Coram street outlet is in a deplorable mess and is both a hazard and an eyesore for people living in the street. I am told that, since the debate was announced, some action has been taken to provide a fence, but that it is makeshift and unsatisfactory.
Are we witnessing a scheme to sell land which is a local amenity, the development value of which could add up to millions of pounds? Are we simply witnessing no more than arrogance and insensitivity? I do not know. If Mr. Gallop and Mr. Mellor had been open and forthcoming, concerned local residents might have known. If, without the response of those people, we are forced to place our own interpretation on their role, they have only themselves to blame. If they will not provide answers, I ask the Government to do so.
Will the Government set up an inquiry into the activities of the Manchester and Salford Playing Fields Society and its officers? Will they inform me on behalf of my constituents whether those people have the right to have discussions about selling land which they hold as a charitable trust and which on purchase was vested in the official trustee of charity lands? Above all, will the Government protect an amenity valued by thousands of my constituents and give me the assurance that the Government will not permit the land to be sold?
In a letter to my constituent, Mr. Trevor Mooney, Mr. J. S. Donaldson of the Department of the Environment regional office in Manchester stated:
Local authorities are generally best placed to make these difficult judgments on land uses on the basis of local needs, policies and priorities.
Manchester city council has made its position clear on these matters. Mr. Donaldson continued:
The Government have urged local authorities to take into account the needs of the wider community and to consult local sport and recreation interests before allowing recreational land to be developed.
Those are encouraging words and I look forward to further encouraging words when the Minister replies.
My constituents reject any possibility of Godfrey Ermen field being built on. They want the fine lung provided for them by Godfrey Ermen's Trust—they want Godfrey Ermen field to be available for recreational use, as promised at its dedication, "for ever and ever". I look to the Government for the assurances for which my constituents ask and to which they have a right.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on using this opportunity to raise a matter which is clearly of great concern to his constituents and on putting their case with his usual force and thoroughness. I echo his opening remarks by also congratulating Manchester United, friends and hon. Members who have a personal, constituency and sporting interest in its success this evening.
I well understand the feelings of residents in the Abbey Hey area of Gorton at seeing land which once provided a valuable recreational asset, and which appears capable of doing so again, being closed off and left unused. It must be particularly upsetting to them that the owners appear to be a body whose name suggests that its essential function is to provide recreational land.
The land is privately owned and, like all private land, its owners are entitled to use it as they wish, or not to use it at all, provided that they comply with any planning, building or other controls which may be relevant.
At this point it may be helpful if I say something about the Manchester and Salford Playing Fields Society and its activities. I am informed that the society was funded in 1907 by Mr. Will Melland, a local lads' club manager, with the object of providing playing fields for organised games for children, youths and adults of both sexes within or near the city of Manchester and the then borough of Salford.
The society was registered as a charity and is regulated by a scheme of the Charity Commission dated 23 August 1923. Within the scheme, the society has the power to sell, let, mortgage or exchange lands which are not immediately required or which it may be advantageous to the charity to do so. The power has been exercised from time to time when grounds have been sold and others bought or exchanged.
The Godfrey Ermen playing field was bought by the society in 1928 as a freehold property. Its last tenant was the GEC sports and social club, which relinquished its tenancy in 1985 after having spent several thousand pounds of its own money trying to correct a drainage problem. The society says that, in order to attract another client, it would first be necessary to correct the drainage of the field. Its investigations have shown that the cost of a full drainage system would be prohibitive, and the field has been left fallow while its future has been considered. Because of vandalism, the society has had to demolish the pavilion which stood on the land, and on the likely income from the field the society could not expect to be able to replace it.
Since GEC left in 1985, the society has received only two inquiries about the use of the playing field. As has rightly been said by the right hon. Member for Gorton, the society has, however, had various approaches from property developers and others interested in developing

the land. However, it still remains in the ownership of the society. That is the position as the society has described it.
I cannot speak for the society, nor can I say what view the Charity Commission would be likely to take of any proposal by the society to dispose of the Godfrey Ermen land. However, I can say something about the planning background which may be relevant should a proposal to develop the land proceed.
It is clearly desirable that urban land should he used effectively. In urban areas, the provision of open spaces, whether as playing fields or as areas for walking and informal recreation, may be as desirable as the provision of land for houses or even for employment generating development. One of the Government's aims, therefore, is to ensure that recreational land and facilities are not unjustifiably lost. But competing pressures on local authorities for housing and industrial development sometimes mean that recreational land will either be relocated or lost, particularly when it has fallen into disuse.
The clear advice given to the right hon. Gentleman by the local office of the Department of the Environment rightly shows—and I echo the right hon. Gentleman's words—that local authorities are generally best placed to make these difficult judgments on land use on the basis of local needs, policies and priorities and are therefore the authorities primarily responsible for regulating development in their own areas. The planning Acts have given local authorities ample powers to prevent remaining open spaces from being built upon when, having regard to their local development plan and other national considerations, they consider it right to do so.
I understand that Manchester city council did indeed refuse a planning application for permission to build houses on the Godfrey Ermen playing field in 1975. Whether it would do so again if a new application were made to it would be a matter for the council to determine in the light of all considerations that might be relevant at the time. No doubt the council would have regard, among other things, to a policy in the Greater Manchester structure plan, which is still operative, that seeks to minimise losses of land and facilities used for leisure purposes and to encourage the replacement or relocation of those amenities when they cannot be saved. But it would also need to have regard to any other considerations that might be material and it would not be right for me to speculate about what the council's decision might be.
The Government have urged local authorities to take account of the needs of the wider community and, as has been said, it is important to consult local sporting and recreational interests before allowing recreational land to be developed for other purposes. I have no doubt that Manchester city council will do this should a planning application for the Godfrey Ermen land be made. I know that the council takes the loss of recreational land seriously and seeks to have it replaced with land which is equally good in quality as well as in quantity.
Although, as I have said, the decision on a planning application would be for the council in the first place and is not a matter on which it would be proper for me to speculate, I have no doubt that, in reaching its decision,


the council would give very careful consideration to the effect of a proposal on recreational provision in east Manchester.
Before a planning application is received, it could well be that the council will have the benefit of a planning policy guidance note on sport and recreation which the Government hope to issue to consolidate and update existing planning guidance to local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman might find it helpful to know that the Government's main agency for advising on and helping to develop opportunities for sport and recreation is the Sports Council, an independent body sponsored by my Department. Through the regional councils for sport and recreation, the Sports Council rightly monitors the provision of recreational land and facilities at local level and seeks to ensure that recreational land is retained.
I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman's points about his constituency and about the need for adequate provision of recreational land and open space. That is especially important at a time when it is all too easy in built-up constituencies, such as his and mine, with declining school rolls and 1 million fewer children likely to be in school in 1994 than in 1984, for recreational land to be disposed of.
One of the key points about the planning policy guidance note that we hope shortly to publish for consultation, is to reinforce the importance of open land and good recreational space being available. It is so easy to build on recreational land and so difficult to provide for future generations and the numbers of children who would wish to benefit from open space, especially those living in heavily built-up urban areas. It is difficult to undo what has been done by developers.
I have considerable sympathy with the strength of opinion that the right hon. Gentleman has expressed. Those of us who are responsible for sport and recreation and for the education of children must emphasise the importance of open space and recreational land; hence my support for the principle that he has espoused this evening. However, I am sure that he would be the first to recognise that, when wearing a planning hat, it is right and proper that I should not intervene in what might become a case to be considered in due course by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
The future of the Godfrey Ermen playing field, like any other privately owned land, lies primarily with its owners. Like other owners, they are free to make proposals for its future development, and are free also to seek to acquire the property of their neighbours if they consider that that might help them to produce a more acceptable development scheme. Only when they have produced a scheme and require planning permission for it do they need to make an approach to the council. In the meantime, if they choose not to use their land, the planning system cannot force them to use it.
The planning system cannot force landowners to open up their land for use by the public or to use it in any way that they choose not to do. However, if an authority considers that land is required for development, redevelopment or improvement, or for a purpose it is

necessary to achieve in the interests of the proper planning of an area, it may use its powers to acquire it, by agreement or compulsorily, to ensure that it is used properly.
The right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to say whether the use of the council's powers would be justified in the case of the Godfrey Ermen land or of any other land in Manchester. Nor would it be right for me to express any opinion about what might be its proper use because, as I have said, it is a question that could come before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the form of a planning appeal or in compulsory purchase proceedings.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether my right hon. Friend would be prepared to hold an inquiry into the affairs of the society. I understand his wish, and that of his constituents, to have the future of the Godfrey Ermen land resolved, but there is no planning issue at present that would justify intervention by the Secretry of State into the affairs of that private organisation. As I explained, if the society put forward planning proposals for the land, the city council would consider them. If, failing proposals being put to it, the council thought that the planning interest of the community justified it, it might seek to acquire the land. In either event, the matter could come before the Secretary of State and be fully ventilated at an inquiry into a planning appeal or a compulsory purchase order.
For the moment all that I can say to local people and to the right hon. Gentleman is that they should ensure that their views about the land are made clear to the city council so that they might be given proper weight in the event of a planning application being made. If they are concerned that there is a good planning case for putting this land into active recreational use, and are unable to persuade the owners to do that, they must put their case to the council and press it to consider the possibility of acquiring the land.
It is important for planning authorities to move briskly to a position where planning decisions can be taken in the context of up-to-date development plans. The procedures leading to the adoption of such plans offer considerable opportunities for public consultation and for the consideration of objections and representations. Once plans have been adopted, therefore, decisions guided by them are likely to carry considerable weight and to be less susceptible to challenge than others.
The right hon. Member might well consider it in the interests of the people of Gorton, both in relation to the Godfrey Ermen land and otherwise, to do all that he can to encourage Manchester city council to proceed with the utmost vigour and speed with the production of its unitary plan.
A major scheme at Longsight, east Manchester, is the city-wide athletic facility at the former Ducie high school, where more than £1 million has been approved for the reclamation of 6·8 hectares of school playing fields to provide a regional field and track athletic facility.
Therefore, the Government are far from unmindful of the value of open spaces and recreational facilities in inner urban areas such as Gorton. However, local planning problems are essentially matters for the local planning


authority, and it remains with Manchester city council to use its planning powers as necessary in order to deal with the problems of individual sites.
Once again, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman. He has made his case clear, and it is on the record. He has taken the interests of his constituents one step further. I thank him for giving us the opportunity to consider the

importance of open space for good recreational provision, to ensure that it is not lost, and to re-emphasise, as he has done, the importance of preserving the quality of life for so many people in inner-city areas by making open space and recreational fields available for the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Eleven o'clock.